Climate change may change the way ocean waves impact 50% of the world’s coastlines

Mark Hemer
Swellnet Analysis

Authors Mark Hemer, Ian Young, Joao Morim Nascimento, Nobuhito Mori

The rise in sea levels is not the only way climate change will affect the coasts. Our research, published today in Nature, found a warming planet will also alter ocean waves along more than 50% of the world’s coastlines.

If the climate warms by more than 2℃ beyond pre-industrial levels, southern Australia is likely to see longer, more southerly waves that could alter the stability of the coastline.

Scientists look at the way waves have shaped our coasts – forming beaches, spits, lagoons and sea caves – to work out how the coast looked in the past. This is our guide to understanding past sea levels.

But often this research assumes that while sea levels might change, wave conditions have stayed the same. This same assumption is used when considering how climate change will influence future coastlines – future sea-level rise is considered, but the effect of future change on waves, which shape the coastline, is overlooked.

Changing waves

Waves are generated by surface winds. Our changing climate will drive changes in wind patterns around the globe (and in turn alter rain patterns, for example by changing El Niño and La Niña patterns). Similarly, these changes in winds will alter global ocean wave conditions.

Further to these “weather-driven” changes in waves, sea level rise can change how waves travel from deep to shallow water, as can other changes in coastal depths, such as affected reef systems.

Recent research analysed 33 years of wind and wave records from satellite measurements, and found average wind speeds have risen by 1.5 metres per second, and wave heights are up by 30cm – an 8% and 5% increase, respectively, over this relatively short historical record.

These changes were most pronounced in the Southern Ocean, which is important as waves generated in the Southern Ocean travel into all ocean basins as long swells, as far north as the latitude of San Francisco.

Sea level rise is only half the story

Given these historical changes in ocean wave conditions, we were interested in how projected future changes in atmospheric circulation, in a warmer climate, would alter wave conditions around the world.

As part of the Coordinated Ocean Wave Climate Project, ten research organisations combined to look at a range of different global wave models in a variety of future climate scenarios, to determine how waves might change in the future.

While we identified some differences between different studies, we found if the 2℃ Paris agreement target is kept, changes in wave patterns are likely to stay inside natural climate variability.

However in a business-as-usual climate, where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed we’re likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world’s coasts. These changes varied by region.

Less than 5% of the global coastline is at risk of seeing increasing wave heights. These include the southern coasts of Australia, and segments of the Pacific coast of South and Central America.

On the other hand decreases in wave heights, forecast for about 15% of the world’s coasts, can also alter coastal systems.

But describing waves by height only is the equivalent of describing an orchestra simply by the volume at which it plays.

Some areas will see the height of waves remain the same, but their length or frequency change. This can result in more force exerted on the coast (or coastal infrastructure), perhaps seeing waves run further up a beach and increasing wave-driven flooding.

Similarly, waves travelling from a slightly altered direction (suggested to occur over 20% of global coasts) can change how much sand they shunt along the coast – important considerations for how the coast might respond. Infrastructure built on the coast, or offshore, is sensitive to these many characteristics of waves.

While each of these wave characteristics is important on its own, our research identified that about 40% of the world’s coastlines are likely to see changes in wave height, period and direction happening simultaneously.

While some readers may see intense waves offering some benefit to their next surf holiday, there are much greater implications for our coastal and offshore environments. Flooding from rising sea levels could cost US$14 trillion worldwide annually by 2100 if we miss the target of 2℃ warming.

How coastlines respond to future climate change will be a response to a complex interplay of many processes, many of which respond to variable and changing climate. To focus on sea level rise alone, and overlooking the role waves play in shaping our coasts, is a simplification which has great potential to be costly.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Xiaolan Wang, Senior Research Scientist at Environment and Climate Change, Canada, to this article.
This article first appeared in The Conversation

Comments

Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 2:44pm

So.......more frequent, long period South swells? What would have to change to cause this?

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 2:59pm

I'm really trying to find some useful information in this article.

it's kind of scienc-y but says nothing specific.

is there a table you can look up?

kneepete's picture
kneepete's picture
kneepete commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:06pm

Its been condensed for a lay audience who wouldn't ask too many questions, they've done the same with todays Herald article which is taken from the same paper. The idea is that those who want to know more have to buy the paper from Nature.

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:14pm
Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:00pm

"Longer,more Southerly waves" do they mean "More long-period SouthernHemi swells" or "More swells will be of a more southerly direction". Less than 5% of the worlds coastlines affected? That seems a bit conservative. At a guess I would say 30% of the worlds coasts would be affected in some way if there were More big South swells. But hey I'm no expert.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:11pm

At a guess I assume they mean longer period swells from a more southerly direction.

geoffrey's picture
geoffrey's picture
geoffrey commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:02pm

more south than southwest? thats good for east coast surfers

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:43pm

Looks like it's time for some more of that favourite pastime that is science bashing, just gonna sit back and enjoy this....

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:45pm

Lol

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:52pm

Not you too ... stop with the Global Warming BS!
A few thousand years ago the sea was about 100m LOWER than it is as the moment and the "beach" was about 30km out to sea from current east coast ... a few thousand years before that the sea was about 40m HIGHER than it is at the moment and the coast was about 10-20km further inland ... and so the cycle has been for a the last few hundred millennia ... the seas gunna come and the seas gunna go .... get over it ....

abc-od's picture
abc-od's picture
abc-od commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:07pm

Put a sock in it, Will.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:16pm

wow good reply ...

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:18pm

I love it when people cite scientific findings when it suits their argument (or defence of way of life), but dismiss them when they don't...

Sprout's picture
Sprout's picture
Sprout commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:33pm

There's a difference between a comet liquifying the 3 mile thick Laurentide Ice Sheet and the human contribution to global sea level rise. One is preventable/reversible.

simba's picture
simba's picture
simba commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 3:54pm

Well if temperatures rise by 2 degrees, i think surfing will be the last thing you will be doing...surviving will be the first.

simba

bongsalot's picture
bongsalot's picture
bongsalot commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:18pm

temps rising 2degrees will do stuff all..just imagine, instead of 19 today, it would be 21..20 tomorrow,22 instead..mainstream media hysteria set-up to coerce the masses into spending billions of dollars for what?..
its a cycle..the sooner the so called 'educated' realise their time on earth is finite the more they realise nothing can actually stop it..get a grip or alternatively vote for steggall.

daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kaha... commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:24pm

Platinum level trolling.

scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 12:29pm

Platinum level idiocy more like. He doesn’t even posses a primary school level understanding of basic science

bongsalot's picture
bongsalot's picture
bongsalot commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:33pm

not at all daisy, you just need to realise and comprehend that this has been happening for thousands, millions of years..unless you dont believe the science..question..if we were to stop all polution today and the earth still continues to heat, change, melt, rise whatever..what does the science say then? because in all likelihood it actually will continue..history is littered with adaptation, forever evolving..glaciers have melted before then refrozen, sea levels were so high none of us couldve lived where we do now so what caused all the change?.. suddenly we are in an emergency situation? c'mon mate..look at who is controlling the climate research..who funds it....once you start digging it all starts to appear

daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kaha... commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:36pm

I liked you better ten minutes ago.

Basil's picture
Basil's picture
Basil commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 5:08pm

I think the standard of "bongsalot's" contribution to the climate debate may be somehow related to their moniker...

Basil

goofyfoot's picture
goofyfoot's picture
goofyfoot commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 9:50pm

Daisy duke, This is easily one of the better comebacks I’ve ever heard.

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:42pm

Gold!!!

Robo's picture
Robo's picture
Robo commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 4:58pm

Not convinced myself.

bongsalot's picture
bongsalot's picture
bongsalot commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 5:28pm

sorry for my rant but..in other news headlines BOM have just said we MAY have a 50% chance of finding a rare simba ooshie today

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 5:32pm

one thing that's new now crew- humanity has become aware it is self aware- so to sit by and do nothing while it knows it can be a responsible steward for planetary change, is negligence. self aware species become the local version of the creative force in that they then understand that lifes mission to keep on keeping on does not come from a mythological or religious conception of the prime creator. the prime creator is us being human and it does not want to see planet earth and humanity get annihilated by it's own victimhood/ignorance/arrogance. yes life will keep evolving but we have a chance now to assist it in an empowering way for all earth creatures. to do nothing is like sitting and watching your house burn down from your own dropped match because you believe that fire/volcanoes shaped our earth, so that's just the way it is. wake up you mob, this is a wonderful opportunity to leave a legacy worthy of our divine heritage.

davetherave

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 7:23pm

A lot of new angles there, maybe some examples...swellnet crew can fix that.

Disappearing Iceland slush makes for lousy wave fuel,it's going nowhere fast.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/08/icelanders-mourn-loss-of-okjkull-glac...

Antarctica sheers off iceberg shard Tsunamis, spiking Bight wave height?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VnEG3KbIQ
Southern Ocean has the fuel & it's volatile...makes sense!

March 2011 Japan Tsunami (18 hrs) on...Waves sheer off Antarctic Shelf.
Check out the video of Huey's wave pool cross wash...Everyone gets a wave!
[0:38] Pause,see how Oz gets Tsunami Swell last, like in a giant pin ball machine
So weird to think Oz gets a S/E rebound swell from Japanese Tsunami...{R.I.P}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9zyZ9SfK8c

Sept 2015 Chilean Tsunami (Pause [0:59] 1st S > E angles cross/spike mid Oz Coast).
Measures focus on Ice Shelf Waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAbQJXtlbzU

All earthquake waves reverberate Antarctica & The Bight is a big close reverb target.

Top End Gulf is also rising fast...Who says new surf spots are a load of Crock? Snap!
http://theconversation.com/a-wet-warning-from-australias-top-end-on-risi...
swellnetonians recall mass 'Top End' Mangrove die-back.
Larger waves riding a higher storm surge killed off Gulf of Carpentaria Mangroves.
Not the wave height but the sediment trawled up to 1km inland killing all life.

Craig's smaller more forceful 'infra-gravity' waves may have done the damage.
We all see the way said 'sleeper waves' rip up the floorboards so to speak.
https://www.swellnet.com/news/swellnet-analysis/2019/06/11/waves-youve-n...

June 2019 Mangrove dieback in the Gulf of Carpentaria
Jump to conclusion > Pages 48/49
https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/mangrove-dieback-gulf-of-carpent...

Two different sides of OZ story playing out at opposite ends & both in the firing line.

bill.boiler's picture
bill.boiler's picture
bill.boiler commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 7:26pm

Did u know that its all happened before and no not even during the last warm period .. Greenland is called GREEN land because it was GREEN with grass not covered in ice... and even as recently as the 1920s you could sail a vessel right through the Arctic: i.e. it melted enough for ships to pass the Bering Straight ...

Need to read some history

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 12:26am

Read! I wish...2nd bad case of central serous retinopathy kinda buggers that!
https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7480/1483

Alternate history on the excellent point you raised...
A Qldurr designed a ship to sail across the Arctic Circle whilst frozen in ice & did!
C Archer designed off aboriginal canoes & was 1st ship to sail to both arctic circles.
Fram's wider plan was years ahead of time & dominates today's Surfboard shapes.
Yes! All are reading that exclusively @ swellnet right here & now! Not elsewhere!

A few of this weeks Surf history exclusives...If eye improves i'll step it up a bit 'Bill.

https://www.swellnet.com/news/swellnet-dispatch/2019/08/18/neanderthals-...

https://www.swellnet.com/news/depth-test/2019/08/08/review-children-tide...

tbb's landscape embodies the most ancient climactic stories, shared with swellnet.
Rest assured #1 swellnet has excellent Surf history Archives...crew will assist!

dandob's picture
dandob's picture
dandob commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:30pm

Ummm no. "Greenland"was basically a marketing name to attract more Viking settlers.

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 7:47pm

Outstanding contribution to the discussion by qualified climate scientists Will Smithson, Bongsalot and Bill Boiler. I think Will and Bill are probably the same person, both put a full stop between their first and last names, which seems an odd coincidence.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 7:55pm

Cant speak for Bill but the "." is cause you login with Facebook and it puts the "." in so I'm going to assume the Bill logs in with FB as well ...

Sorry adam.12 but your "odd coincidence" is not odd at all and not coincidence but rather just a FB idiosyncrasy ...

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:03pm

bill, bong, will, whoever, it does not matter, it is all about us as we are here right now. u could be like me and know it's a virtual reality, but it really comes down to who we are. mate, imagine if we could do /be something that helped our/future generations.
last breath, u could assist another to be more magnificent than what they currently ari believe u would be 100 %. imagine, our each last breath could help all life on planet earth, would u draw deeply- course u would,

davetherave

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:46pm

Look its simple:

At best we have about 50 years of oil left and 100 or so years of coal left. If we don't find an alternative energy source its back to the caves for all of us!

And no solar (PV or thermal) and wind will not cut unless we find some miracle battery (unlikely cos we know the chemistry of batteries!) so we need something else .. probably fission then Thorium in the interim and then hopefully fusion ...

So stop wasting our last few precious years and resources on stupid emotional politically driven Green BS (which is what we are doing at the moment) and spend it on good basic science instead because thats the only real solution other than back to basket weaving!

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:57pm

What would actually be wrong with the world being forced to simplify?

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 9:10pm

Mate, todays' "good, basic science" tells us, or those prepared to believe it, that burning coal like we do now for "100 or so years" won't leave us weaving baskets, we will be well and truly fucked way before then. It isn't politically driven Greens bullshit, the planet doesn't give a fuck about your petty culture wars, and either do I. Go comment on Andrew Bolts blog fucktard, you'll find plenty of like minded numpties over there.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 9:27pm

No it doesn't: it tells us nothing of the sort! If it's not obvious I'm one of them .. a scientist ...

The ONLY thing that tells us Armageddon is coming and we should repent is a set of half baked and fudged computer models backed by a politically driven UN that wants to implement some radical form of social justice/change ... that's NOT science that's politics!

PS when u know you have won an argument: name calling, personal insults and usually followed by threats!

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:16pm

Yeah right, you are a scientist. Yeah right, it's all a UN conspiracy.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming yet as a "scientist" you choose to blame Green politics and a "politically driven UN". They are the ones raising global temperatures, melting the ice, raising sea levels.
I stand by my comments and my insults. Now fuck off.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 7:08am

Like I said the only "evidence" that CO2 is the cause of any of the recent warming (if there is such ... the pre satellite/digital T records are very corrupted and the fudge factors in the satellite adjustments are also "interesting" but that's another argument) is the GCM computer models and we know about computer models getting it wrong ... CFCs and Ozone are a classic example: for years we were told (research sponsored by DuPont) that CFCs were causing ozone depletion ... the computer models said so ... well it turns out the computer models were WRONG .. one of the rate constants for one of the free radical reactions (ClO.) was out by a factor of ~10 ... hence the computer models were WRONG: CFCs were not the problem but too late the only viable alternative to CFCs was R134a ... guess who held the patent ??? DuPont ...

Same for Climate Change GCM computer models: garbage in -> garbage out

Follow the money (and in in this case the political agenda as well ...)

More insults ??? Come on I know you have it in you ....

Basil's picture
Basil's picture
Basil commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:19am

don't forget the insurance companies, they are in on it too, greenie bastards!

Basil

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:52am

As I said below "follow the money ..."

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 12:48pm

Follow whos' money? Exxons, Chevrons, British Petroleums? How about we follow Glencores money, or Adanis or Clive Palmers? As I said above, just fuck off.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 1:39pm

follow the money , follow Exon and its studies on climate change , where Exon knew in the 70's , fossil fuels heated the planet , then Exon created lobby groups to say the opposite of their own research....ah ...
Will you have been conned by the oil lobby....read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

there are a lot of links but it shows clearly that one of the biggest oil Co's in the world has research that says climate change is real and is being accelerated by man made emissions ........you have been duped

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:44pm

Ok I'll bite ... what kind of scientist are you?

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:59pm

He's a Kelloggs scientist - got his degree in a box of Cornflakes.

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:17pm

‘2 degrees won’t make a difference? ‘ Ignorance at its best.
We have irrefutable evidence to the contrary and if you have missed it you are chosing to do so.
Let’s say the Bill’s, Will’s and Bong’s of the world are right and this is all just part of a ‘cycle’ how could trying to do something about what we’ve fucked up be a bad thing? How could governments who have the technology, means, potential policy to do something about the 1000’s of current and future environmental disasters be a bad thing?
Wouldn’t you think this joint be better with less plastic, more forests, sustainable energy and food sources, healthy ecosystems, etc etc.

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:48pm

The problem with getting it wrong and spending billions on climate change initiatives and alternative energy sources is that if the science is wrong its a shit load of money that could of gone to solving world hunger, education or healthcare.

I'm not saying the science is wrong, but constantly testing it leads to better outcomes.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:55am

Be nice if it worked that way, wouldn't it?

But world hunger has been an ongoing issue, around far longer than climate change, so it's not like govts are rushing to put money there, and education and healthcare are constantly under funding threats. If money is saved somewhere it goes into tax cuts, not into the sectors that need it. It's the Australian way.

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:52am

Geez you always this cynical so early in the morning Stu? U might need to rethink posting before 7am ; )

My point is that these initiatives have an opportunity cost and with the amount of money involved that they actually need to deliver some kind of benefit.

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:48pm

I see your point re: pouring all that money into the sustainability / climate change sector however I don't really see this as mutually exclusive to things such as health and world hunger.
All of this is inter-related. If we fuck up our planet and things go they way they are than how are we going to feed the world's population anyway? If we pollute the waterways or spoil all our fresh water sources what are people going to drink? ........it feels like health, education, etc are all relative to the kind of planet we live on.
My points are have not been so dooms day but more why the hell do we want to live on such a shit hole devoid of nature and healthy enviroments? (or more to the point why would we want this for others - i.e. future gen)

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 4:59pm

Fair play!

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:26pm

solitude, do u have this fully with what u state? may u do brutha. in my expereience, there is a gut feeling that leads me to a place of how i can assist this planet earth and it's friends., gut feeling, , intuition, whatever it is, i choose to help and assist even though they think i am an idiot, but the feeling og loving to me is 100% better than feeling unloved,

davetherave

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 8:51pm

Not quite sure I understand you original question Dave?
Do you mean do I feel I/we can make a difference to the world around us?

Thegrowingtrend.com's picture
Thegrowingtrend.com's picture
Thegrowingtrend.com commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 9:41pm

The Aliens caused everything. The sooner we start wearing aluminium hats the better. My garden gnome told me the other day.
It’s as if I was floating on a dream filled with giant beans.
All we can really do is exist in the present moment. Mindfulness is a grounding gravity

Nicko

Nogaryno's picture
Nogaryno's picture
Nogaryno commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 10:12pm

Why is bill.boilers profile pic from the metal fabrication service page of the indiamart web site https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/metal-fabrication-service-209437882... .

Stupitt's picture
Stupitt's picture
Stupitt commented Tuesday, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:05pm

If it’s written down it’s the truth. Bugger climate change how’s the government trying to stop cashies. Please tax me more.

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 7:50am

sorry solitude, i was asking you how you think we can assist the change we seek? i like your understanding of things and I believe we achieve little by arguing with those that obviously don't fully comprehend our responsibility to change our unsustainable and polluting ways. why can't we grow hemp to replace plastics etc etc? What other things do you believe we should prioritize personally? Sorry for the confusing post- i was using alcohol to finally get a decent night's sleep.Thank Christ i did as i was getting pretty buggered.

davetherave

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:28am

Hey Dave,
Mate I guess the more I read and see the more I tend to get frustrated. I feel THE only reason change is not swift and absolute is pure GREED. Personal, national and international.
I think with all of the big issues our world has faced education has been the key in the past (e.g. a good example of this would be health issues such as HIV, cholera, deaths from car accidents, smoking etc).
It would seem though there are large parts of the world that aren't educated to what we are doing and the ones that are don't have government support to create the change we need.
From a smaller or more local standpoint there's heaps we can do (and by no means am I the expert)
- eating less meat
- using less / recycling soft and hard plastics
- owning only one vehicle or using public transport
- riding to the beach, surfing local, less OS surf trips
- look through your house and realize how much shit you've got and minimalise
- Downsize
- Support local everything (less freight, air freight has a MASSIVE carbon footprint)
Obviously not an exhaustive list but I feel doing some of the above things not only helps the world we live in but can also help ground yourself. I've got a bunch of little ones and am more and more conscious of the world the past few generations have created for them.

scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 12:44pm

Totally agree Solitude, except going vegan is really the biggest single impact one can have and is the least we should be doing to sort out the mess humans have made. Animal agriculture is the single biggest contributor to climate change, deforestation and destruction of natural habitat. People need to stop putting a fleeting satisfaction of their taste buds above everything else.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 1:57pm

not for all .

if you live in the city , probably yes.

if you have any access to local food supplies, then no.

Solitude's picture
Solitude's picture
Solitude commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:15pm

Yeah not sure everyone being vegan is the whole answer - no doubt it would help. I haven't considered it (think about vegetarianism and mainly eat that way).

Hard thing too is Palm Oil - the shit is in everything, how do you avoid that stuff?

As mentioned those are just a few things I do (plenny more I haven't mentioned), there are 1000's of other possibilities.
Be interesting to hear others thoughts......

Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw's picture
Ray Shirlaw commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:23am

Can someone qualified actually answer my question? HOW & WHY could we expect More long period South swells? I have some ideas but I'm not sure if they could be influenced by climate change.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:52am

Think you'd have to read the paper, Ray. Though I assume it may have something to do with poleward expansion of the tropics, which may in turn push the Roaring Forties further south.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 9:38am

OK without reading the paper can take an educated guess: the GCM computer models are really models for how heat is dispersed around the planet so the [simple] theory is more heat produces more wind to disperse said heat. So again without seeing the actual model runs (and no you cant ALL the models except for GISS are secret!) hot air rises ... cooler air moves in ... more southerly winds in the our hemisphere. But its a lot more complicated than that by things like rotational dynamics (wind at the poles moves slower than wind at the equator so if air moves toward the equator from the poles it has to speed up and creates coriolis circulation and then there's drag etc etc etc etc etc etc .. so there is no simple answer ....

scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger's picture
scottishsponger commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 12:45pm

What kind of scientist are you Will?

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 1:53pm

I'm curious as to what kind of scientist too. If a climate scientist, maybe a little dirty not a co-author on a Nature paper?

garyg1412's picture
garyg1412's picture
garyg1412 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:36am

Addressing climate change is only going to happen with a combined effort from governments around the world, and not wanting to sound too pessimistic here, that ain't gonna happen any time soon. People power just isn't going to get this one over the line, so if it means more long period southerly swells in the interim, then enjoy it while you can. Also maybe a debate about this with our garden gnomes is better than one with like minded abusive numpties!!!

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:14am

Agree especially when governments are the real enemy.

Just this morning I read in The Guardian that the NSW water minister specifically changed recommendations in favour of rice growers Barwon-Darling basin. It turns out they were issued with class A licences to draw water (lets them take it during drought) and they did which threw the Barwon - Darling into drought 3 YEARS early.

But get this a staggering 86% of water licences are held by 10 irrigators but only 4 rice farmers hold 75% of all the licences in the basin!!

Solution?? Using tax payers money to buy back the licences issued by the minister in error ..... you couldn't make this shit up.

.... so the real battler farmer out there suffering drought for over 3 years now have been reamed by their own LNP politicians

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/21/big-irrigators-ta...

gavin007's picture
gavin007's picture
gavin007 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 1:17pm

So Vico is going to pump?
bring it on !!

pcrisp's picture
pcrisp's picture
pcrisp commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:22pm

Queue the climate change lynch mob talking about this subject every time a big swell appears on the radar- "the swells are rising" can now replace "the poles are melting". Question is how come Al Gore bought a beachfront mansion with the proceeds of all his speeches from tax paying citizens around the world? Nobody seems to want to answer this. Surfers were traditionally the last culture to accept globalist propaganda crap.

daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kahanamoku's picture
daisy duke kaha... commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:40pm

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they ask you weird questions about an irrelevant person,
then you win.

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:44pm

It's these types of comments.... "Go comment on Andrew Bolts blog fucktard, you'll find plenty of like minded numpties over there." and "I stand by my comments and my insults. Now fuck off." ....that simply lose me every time when it comes to global warming etc.

Be there an argument or not for it, the fact that people must insult others who have a different or alternate opinion to another seems no longer acceptable. Its moronic.

I try to teach my 6 year old at school about social acceptance and appreciating others views even if not the same as her own...and yet....we resort to the same crap we educate our kids not to do.

Its self defeating. You end up playing the man not the ball. Its the same with most minority groups voices....their message may very well be valid..but people are turned off by the way they insist they're voice must be the loudest. People just end up speaking more loudly to void whats now become just an annoying "noise".

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 2:52pm

Not too sure which side you're arguing for, Spookypt. Few commenters opened their salvos by assuming anyone who believes in climate change is intellectually deficient, or has been brainwashed, or hasn't read enough.

Condescension never makes for good conversation.

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 3:03pm

Hey Stu, I have an opinion but not necessarily a side.

As you can see from the "" above the name calling (on this occasion) was coming from a CT believer to a CT non believer. Reverse the role is fine, agree to disagree also fine....but calling people fucktards and telling them fuck off purely because they chose to express their point of view does nothing towards gaining support for their point of view. That's all I was saying....
Although I will add that Social Media may very well bring on Armageden well before I crawl out of bed and find my slippers are wet from the ice caps melting.

Carry on....

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 4:22pm

I'm not trying to convince anyone and I don't care if I lose support from anyone. I abuse these people because I am sick of them wanting to debate and defend the indefensible. My home (planet earth) is being destroyed by ignorance and greed and these "fucktards" come up with shit like "follow the money", "it's all a green/ UN conspiracy" and "Al Gore bought a beachside mansion" and "surfers were traditionally the last culture to accept this globalist propaganda crap". They don't deserve a reasoned approach or debate in my opinion, so I take every opportunity I have to abuse them and always will. I don't really care what they or anybody else thinks. They are free to reciprocate if they wish, they are free to express their opinion, but I'm not debating this shit with these people anymore, it's hammer time as far as I am concerned.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 4:51pm

That's because if I started to talk about integro-differential equations, initial and boundary conditions or temporal or spatial resolution and sub grid phenomena you would not have the slightest idea what I am talking about ... (BTW they are the fundamental mathematics upon which the GCM climate models are based) ..

But that's the problem for a lot of people: this has become not a matter of science but a matter of faith i.e. it is a religious belief and cannot be challenged: "repent now or you are all going to die ...." We even have "Messiahs" like Gore or Attenborough or Suzuki who while all good communicators and charismatic none of whom has the slightest idea about climate science .... and yet whose words are the New Gospel of Global Warming

PS adam.12 ... that wasn't for you .. it was for the benefit of others ...

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:09pm

Please do illuminate us on the fundamental flaws in climate modelling ...

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:38pm

Yes, I'd like to be illuminated too. Maybe by way of a rebuttal to Nature about how the 27 climate science experts that authored the paper have it all wrong lol.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:44pm

Hmm there have been hundreds of papers (maths, physics, chemistry and numerical analysis) on problems with climate models so to do it justice here is impossible; but the short version:

Sub Grid:
1: spatial resolution: the models divide the atmosphere up into BIG cubes .. they are WAY too big .. huge storms which move heat from one place to another are ignored inside these "cubes"
2: temporal resolution: the models divide time into steps but the steps are too big, just as with spatial, massive events which move GigaWatts of energy are ignored in what are called "sub grid phenomena"
There is no way to fix the problem because we do not have computers fast enough or big enough to reduce the space or time steps ..

Maths:
1: We do not know the initial conditions for the IDEs (starting point of Temp,Humidity, Pressure,CO2, N2, CH4 blah blah etc etc, for the equations)
2: We do not know the boundary conditions for the models: i.e. what the parameters are when they fall over

The Theory:
We know (it is provable mathematically) that if we do not have enough resolution or that we do not know the initial/boundary conditions then these types of models DO NOT WORK (it doesn't matter whether its climate, aerodynamics, fluid flow, electrical, engineering .. the maths is all the same ...)

Physics and Chemistry
The models try to emulate real world molecular interactions (heat etc) with MODELS .. they are not real they are just approximations of the real thing .. but with experience we can get them pretty close (planes fly cos we can model air flow etc) .. BUT ONLY FOR SIMPLE things .. the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and the sun and the solar system and the galaxy (yes we need that too cos gamma rays make clouds!) are just way too complex and we KNOW that the models are MISSING many many things so they are FUDGED in the models like cloud cover is just FUDGED!!!

But the real problem is THEY DON'T WORK .. in reports like the UN IPCC report you only see the the models that they want you to see .. you never see the ones that don't follow the "agenda" ....

EXACTLY the same models are used for day to day weather prediction and while they sort of get it almost right most of the time for a day or so in the future we know they have some serious problems getting it spot on for tomorrow let alone next week ... are we really going to change the very fabric of human society based on our ability to predict the weather a hundred years from now ... ???

That's a layman's intro to modelling the atmosphere

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:55pm

But as a scientist why waste your breath arguing with "laymans", or those that wouldn't know an integral-differential from an inhomogenous Poisson process, when you could be publishing rebuttals in Nature and set for life.... Doesn't make sense to me

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 6:40pm

Very good question!

As to layman as you can see here: layman don't understand either the mathematical/physical issues or even the political ones but they VOTE and they VOTE based on what they are told in the media ... and the media is dominated by the left viz the ABC/Fairfax in Australia/ BBC/Guardian in the UK/NBC etc in the US. who champion AGW for political not scientific ones. The ONLY dissenting media voice is News

EDIT: ABC budget 1Billion + Fairfax 1.6Billion Vs News 2 Billion ... just in case someone said it ...

And as for Nature .. good luck .. they basically wont publish anything that doesn't follow the [political] agenda .. the same people who sit on the editorial throne of Nature are the very same such as the East Anglia Uni Climate Research Unit scientists who refused to release the worlds RAW [un fudged] historic T data until ordered to do so by a court and then promptly "lost" it all .... There are journals that publish off agenda but they are more specialised and more esoteric such as Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry etc stuff that that doesn't make the mainstream media .. no front page story in "no emergency her folks, please move on ..." Look at the CFC/Ozone farce for example ... most people still believe it was CFCs that caused a problem with Ozone even though it has been utterly proved false since ...

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 9:17pm

Appreciate you taking the time to provide a detailed answer. The issues with modelling are not unique to climate science; what is unique is the size and complexity of the system they're trying to model.

Yes modelling has flaws but good science should be clear about the assumptions and uncertainties in modelling outcomes.

At the very least a model will show you where your data gaps are and provide you with areas for further research. It seems you're discrediting the science without providing an alternative for changes observed in measurable values.

I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not going to get into a debate about the science with you BUT if you are a climate scientist I find it very odd that you're on this forum arguing with such passion. Surely there are better ways for you to contribute to the science?

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 6:39am

Hi Jayet

True: they are a mathematical issue that is common issues to the method of integro differential models to approximate reality and the climate complexity is two fold: scale in time/space and the complexity (we don't even know what we don't know e.g. we dont know how clouds form: there is NO model!!!).

As for uncertainty you may notice they never do Monte Carlo analysis of the GCM models ... well they never publish it if they do ;-)

Models are NOT science: the science is in the understanding of the physics (newtonian and quantum) , chemistry, solar and galactic processes. The models are just maths and numerical analysis techniques to approximate those principles.

I'm a retired scientist and doctor with a special interest in maths so I already knew most of the physics and chemistry fundamentals, downloaded the source for the only publicly available model (NASA), learnt Fortran and studied it for a few years.

But I'm also a surfer and just checked in to see if er are getting any swell this weekend and saw the article ... I've done my bit for 40+ years ... time to surf and ride and see the world :-)

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 1:33am

It is scary and dangerous when science becomes less about science and more about politics and money.

atticus's picture
atticus's picture
atticus commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 6:45am

You're right about DuPont and wrong about CFCs. They did (and do) cause ozone depletion, however the Montreal Protocol was manipulated to favour some products, and therefore the companies that make them, over others. However the notion that it was a farce and the science was false is self-serving bollocks that's, not coincidentally, getting a revamp by RWNJs who use it as an analogy with AGM.

Surprise, surprise.

Silversurfer2's picture
Silversurfer2's picture
Silversurfer2 commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 9:26am

I'm glad to see some common sense Will

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:08pm

will you are working from a base that has been completely discredited , called the fossil fuel industry . just lies and bullshit when for example Exxon has known since the 70's that fossil fuels heat up the planet , their own research shows that they have been spreading disinformation topeople like you for decades,,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy........'s the proof!

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 6:34pm

Wikipedia the new "Oracle" I'll just ask one question .. OK two:

1: who "creates" wikipedia ?

2: go and try and edit an entry in Wikipedia ... and watch the fun ... haha lol

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 9:21pm

Sorry Brutus I'm with Will on this one.

Wiki is not a credible source.

Always enjoy listening to you talk about board design and fluid dynamics!!!

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 6:43am

Fluid dynamics and surfboards/fins and sea water and turbulence and air resistance and laminar Vs non laminar ..... now there's a hard problem ...

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 6:00pm

Will, if you start making such assumptions or start insulting my intelligence I'm gonna start abusing you again.

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 4:32pm

Its arguable the non CT believer would just say you're as ignorant as what you acuse them of. See roundy roundy we go. Nothing achieved..Just wind and energy.

A couple a 1000 + years or so ago man exited his cave with a large piece of timber on his shoulder and since that day has for all reasons known and unknown, been beating the $hit out of each other ever since.
I often wonder if it had of been a woman with boobs and bushwarby snatch whether we'd be in a vastly differently place.

ShaneAbel's picture
ShaneAbel's picture
ShaneAbel commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:05pm

Thirty years of data is about a 1000 years short of data required for model extrapolation
Just more of the same global warming unscientific crap which gets fed out
It's about time someone actually said we don't really have any idea about the climate and where it's headed

atticus's picture
atticus's picture
atticus commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 6:48am

Thirty years of data is meagre. Fortunately due to ice core sampling, carbon dating, sediment deposition etc etc etc climate scientists have much more data at hand.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 5:20pm

seems like we do though.

and when the observations are fitting the theory/model predictions then I'd need to see a very strong evidence based counter-argument, not just a bunch of right wing talking points spewed back from anonymous internet shit talkers.

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 6:41pm

did anyone do the bell jar experiment at school? fruitflies or other insects were entrapped in a jar- just like an electromagnetic field that surrounds planet earth, they were fed, encouraged to breed and when they had such a large population that was emitting gas, waste etc they started to die off and the species perished.
so - many humans - emitting pollution- creates imbalance in the planet's ability to support them- they perish- but in our case other species do as well.
the difference is we understand this so we the opportunity to create a different outcome if we start to do things differently.
i personally am very optimistic that things will improve, i see our children and grandchildren with a consciousness of realization of being at one with our planet.
exploitation gets replaced by integration= a good outcome, don't give up hope because we all came here to change humanity for the better.

davetherave

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 7:18pm

Got any evidence Will or peer reviewed papers to back you up?

I only see a grab bag of half baked conspiracy and assertion.

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 9:42pm

Reading Wills reply to Terminal above, after he belittles those who don't accept his views as dumb lay opinions fed by the "left" media which "dominates" opinion in Australia, it seems the papers that he relies on are those produced by the Murdochs.
Also note he hasn't yet divulged his qualifications despite three posters asking him, seems he can't respond to those posts but is happy to imply that he has some greater understanding of the science that the rest of us are incapable of comprehending. As I suspected from the beginning, the issue is part of a left/right culture war to Will, not a matter of the survival of the animal kingdom and the trashing of the planet, which it is to me. And just to keep my posting consistent on this topic, if you are reading this Will, go and get fucked.

tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 7:19pm

It's a subject worth arguing about ,
If you have five minutes ...www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 7:46pm

That was nowhere near five minutes tubeshooter.

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:34pm

davetherave ghostwriting for Hallmark (Nice verse & card cover) Score!
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yX3MQYAY--/c_fill,f...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:51pm

Makes sense more south swells as lows drop further south, also expect to see more cyclone activity and swells as the sea temp window creates a bigger playing field.

Change is change it brings good and bad, going to be interesting to watch all this play out if it happens as many (but not all)
scientist predict.

One thing for certain if it does play out there won't be any stopping it, we can do what we can, but population increase and the continual transition of developing countries to developed countries(high consumption societys) will counter act any positive steps forward.

And no that doesn't mean we don't try, as if real it will still slow things down, but just got to be realistic.

Anyway good to see some balance in the post here, pity not all can respect views they may not agree with.

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 8:54pm

love your work TBB, ant"s without brains are a good thing. . remember the level of awareness is what really matters right here right now. as i said to a brazo whose's wife is studying encironvioronmemal science. thank the negative, but never forget your role in being an agent of sustainable positive change. as u said, swelnet allows us to share without censure unless we are being nasty, really nasty- - thanks , thanks , thanks.

davetherave

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:24am

Plasticland's feral neighbours are still shellshocked by the Kingy Mediscare.
Goldie exchanges #1 quality merch & neighbouring feral bites yer hand off.
1st drop the Queen's Baton now they tear up top shelf tacky greeting cards.

Feraling up their asses higher than us Glitter Stripperz. (Neighbourly compliment!)

Dutto's Shark Patrol is now circling waves illegal entering Kingy back beaches.
Unlock yer bodybasher'z reserve or Goldie steps up cross border Easter incursions.

Greeting card snub heats up cross border "State Of Origin Climate Bash"...It's on!
I know what crew are thinking! tbb has gone off the rails...true! But this is dead set!

[2019 Easter peace accord] Qld annexed Northern NSW for "Womp of Origin."
Womp monger (Churchill): "We will decimate them on the Beaches."
Belly Slater: Last tasted victory in 2017 is high & dry for the Fin Sprint.
[f] 2nd May 2019 Proof that climate change is real ...davetherave is now a Qldurr.
burleybodybash'nbuny!p : "Drain the Swamp...One of Us...One of Us...One of Us!"
https://www.facebook.com/womminwompcomp/posts/2188609408062209?__xts__%5...
or davetherave could just rehouse unloved card aboard Kingy's Planet Ark.
https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/paper-cardboard/TweedNSW
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yX3MQYAY--/c_fill,f...
Brainz...Brainz...Brainz

PKsswellnet's picture
PKsswellnet's picture
PKsswellnet commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:25pm

Always liked the saying - may not agree with you but will fight for your right to have your opinion - or something like that , all part of enjoying living in a democracy and being part of swellnet forum.

When it comes to climate change, governments have failed and are unlikely to lead, the press has failed and is to closely tied to those who benefit from fossil fuel money. I'm not prepared to give up without an effort gotta look those grandkids in the eye in a decade or 2.

The link below is to an Australian group who are combining individuals power over large organisations to try to bring about the shift away from fossil fuels. We all have super we can all direct our super funds not to invest our money in Coal and Oil.

https://www.marketforces.org.au/

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Wednesday, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:05pm

Voltaires' biographer, Evelyn Hall, came up with "I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it", reflecting his view of free speech. A similar Hall/Voltaire quote is "If every man did the little he could, what a different world!" which also seems appropriate to the link you provided.

Silversurfer2's picture
Silversurfer2's picture
Silversurfer2 commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 9:19am

Plenty of scientist debunk the man made global warming scam .. the seas aren't rising .and climatologist say it will likely be a cooling period. Also when the Earth was a few degrees hotter during the Medieval warming period it resulted in a time of prosperity .. things grow better .. animals prosper. Stop pushing the Globalist propaganda aimed at robbing $$ from masses, power and control.
Scare mongering does not work .. and ridicule is even worst for convincing people of this global sting operation.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:46am

plenty of scientists?

Like who?

Lets see some actual peer reviewed science to back it up.

Any intellectually honest reading of "follow the money" points to fossil fuel shills and grifters like Clive Palmer spending 60million on election advertising to sway the election.

I don't believe for a second that this Will Smithson is an actual scientist. Just another internet astro-turfer.

But if there is evidence to the contrary lets see it.

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:58am

[breaking news] davetherave get ready for this...Albo gets a taste for new Coal cereal.
Tweed Council flip flops on Coal contracts.
#1 OZ Cereal "JobzJobzJobz" Coal lumps spooned down the throats of Tweed Labor.
https://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com/2019/08/tweed-shire-council-abando...(North+Coast+Voices)

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 1:52pm

I didnt write the list....google found it for me... (As they say...always buy through Ray White never sell through Ray White)

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections. These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.
Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Friday, 23 Aug 2019 at 7:39am

Impressive list, these guys must be the 1%. Lot of non-experts (not to mention retirees) in climate science in there too, you wouldn't get a plumber to give you advice on your house's electrical wiring would you? I reckon one could generate a similar sized list of scientists that think vaxxing causes autism...

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Friday, 23 Aug 2019 at 10:43am

Terminal not busting your chops but you highlight my point. And that why there'll never be divergence to overall agreement.
1. Impressive list, these guys must be the 1%.
Opinion yes fact unproven.
2. Lot of non-experts (not to mention retirees) in climate science in there too,
Again opinion. Factually that list (if true) indicates many specialists in fields all
relating to climate science.
3. You wouldn't get a plumber to give you advice on your house's electrical wiring
would you?
Well No. Of course not. But I would ask a retired electrician. And while a botanist
in principle may not be my first consult in relation to climate science ,
meteorologist, atmospheric science biologist, oceanographer; paleoclimatologist,
atmospheric scientist, physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science are
generally akin to understand the chosen topic.
4. I reckon one could generate a similar sized list of scientists that think vaxxing
causes autism...
Possibly so, but relevance? Apart from casting dispersions by using another
topic where generally based on numbers antivaxing is nuts why use that as an
angle to justify the position?

You see my point is, until we on both sides of the CT debate are able to respect and debate on relevance and fact the arguments from either side will never be won. I believe, I seriously believe, that the internet/social media will wipe us out long before CT does.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Friday, 23 Aug 2019 at 4:30pm

The cliche line is 95% of scientist agree on man made climate change.

What do 95% of scientist actually agree on?

Basically open to the fact that man has possibly some impact on climate change.

Those included in that 95% are also some of the most vocal that mans influence is very minimal.

spookypt's picture
spookypt's picture
spookypt commented Friday, 23 Aug 2019 at 4:46pm

Yep undeniable that man has had an effect on CT imo. 30 years ago I used to watch my old man poor 100s of ltrs of oil down storm water drains. Yet now, if he was alive, his actions and many others would be far more eco friendly. So in that instance on its own, man had a negative effect but now based on understanding and education and simply being law abiding have had a positive effect. Whether the question of CT leading to unstoppable and catastrophic end is the question I hope a respectable debate and assoc science can prove one way or another. In the meantime can we all just pick up the rubbish we walk past!!

caml's picture
caml's picture
caml commented Thursday, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:40pm

Impressive thread.
I think that 2 degrees hotter will be very noticeable, if you live on the land in a hot dry climate where the trees barely survive summer.
I may still get to shipsterns one day

No mal half a quiver's picture
No mal half a quiver's picture
No mal half a quiver commented Friday, 23 Aug 2019 at 12:47am

Man it’s gods will to soak and flood the yuppie wankers who live in multi million dollar homes on the coast and don’t even surf, fish or walk on the beach man.
If I get hot I sweat noticeably more moisture on my skin the win blows and cools me down.
If earth gets hot there is noticeable more water wind blows cools it down man.
I guess the the earth gets hot water rises wind blows cools down and I surf new breaks with no yuppies and hipsters God’s will man.

tango's picture
tango's picture
tango commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 2:08pm

Will (and entourage), I'm having trouble following both your logic and your science here.

Firstly you quote questionable historical stats to make it sound like the modelled and observed SLR is nothing to worry about. Perhaps check https://coastadapt.com.au/how-climate-and-sea-level-have-changed-over-lo... from a source which is highly reputable.

Secondly, you don't say what kind of scientist or doctor you are/were, and then go on to say that you're pretty much self-taught in maths and related work. I'm struggling to see qualification here - you might be able to regurgitate textbook maths/physics theory at us, but you don't really tie it in.

You've been challenged to rebuke the established science with solid references, but you duck and weave. The science isn't really up for debate anymore - https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ - although it is noted that there are a range of "organisations" challenging it via skepticism eg https://skepticalscience.com/team.php . I think we can all agree that if we were to line up one side (let's call them the home team - the climate scientists, national academies of science etc) against the skeptics (who we might call the visitors, and which include brainiacs form the aforementioned site who open their biographies with gems like "In the 70's I had a dinosaur book...") then not only would the home team numbers dwarf the visitors, but they'd eat them alive on brain power in a 1:1 game.

Spookypt, I think you are taking your list completely out of context - it is one thing to disagree on the exact outcome of a modelling process and/or suggest that the data etc doesn't exist to predict with the necessary accuracy, but entirely another to imply that those on the list are sceptical of warming and the need to address it.

As someone who works in the space and with scientists across a range of disciplines, the key issue for me is that there simply have not been adequate rebuttals of the overarching problem from the sceptic community. No reputable scientific publisher will fly their flag. The peer review process won't let the vast majority of the papers submitted past the first doorway. If there was sufficient evidence to change the course of the issue it would be here now. 50 years is enough time to get the primary issues sorted and start to make a move.

It brings a tear to my eye that my kids feel like they have to strike at school because people are too selfish, won't respect the science and think the rights of future generations are a chip on a blackjack table.

To channel a bit of Adam12 - get on with the evidence, or shut up and fuck off out of the way so that good people can make the changes we need. Ironically, you decry insults all the while completely ignorant of the immense insult your un-substantiated resistance to peer-reviewed science is to everyone with an interest in the future of the planet.

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 6:04pm

Tango, thank you, from the bottom of my heart, thank you, for articulating what my rage and anger with the Wills of this world prevent me from articulating. Wish you the best.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 6:51pm

Your links don't really back your arguments?

I don't think many deny climate naturally changes, but to what extent is man influencing recent warming?

All your post seems to do which is a reflection of the bigger debate is mock and shut down anyone that has an alternative view point, this currently a huge problem, because its no longer about science but more about politics and money.

tango's picture
tango's picture
tango commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:26pm

Quite the contrary, Indo, I'm simply trying to throw down the gauntlet to the sceptics to put forward some published, credible evidence which any rational person could get behind. You give me an alternative view backed up with facts and not opinions and I'm right there with you. After all, the sceptic community have had 50 years to prove it wrong with a mighty carrot from fossil fuel funding and they remain marginal at best. Even Murdoch can't sell it.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 11:40am

Indo....try reading the history of Exxon , how they worked out fossil fuels are heating the planet, how they can profit from Climate change , and how they set up lobby groups telling everyone that fossil fuels have no effect on global warming , while their own reports show the opposite.....

how did you like the Adam Goodes doco?

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 1:04pm

Indo duh ...I forgot to post the link, So if Exxon has proved that fossil fuels heat the planet , and then lobbied from to get people believe the opposite of what they proved...boy there are some gullible peole out there!

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirme...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 2:46pm

Kind of confused about the Adam goodes docco, Adam didn't seem involved or even want to have much to do with it and im not sure what the point of it was, it was almost like trying to re write history it was a timeline of events that left out some aspects and tried to paint other in one light or perspective.

Anyway i gave a more in depth review here https://www.swellnet.com/forums/politico/14821?page=6

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 10:29pm

Sorry been surfing; Lennox was pumping to day :-))))
My goodness, a thoughtful but snide comment ...

Sea levels Facts:
1: Sea level rises and fall about 140m with each Ice Age
2: The last rise was about 130m/10,000 years = 13mm/year. current sea level rise ~1mm/year = nothing to worry about ... its probably going to get worse!
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/sea-level-scare-industry-urges-plans-to...

Not that is matters but UG in chem/physics, PG in CompSci, more maths more than most so called "climate scientists" have!

Consensus in science is BS!
The so called 97% consensus is also BS: read the story of how that came about.

There was consensus before Copernicus and Einstein too! It only takes one: if you are wrong you are wrong! There was consensus about CFCs and ozone: they were wrong: once chemist working in a tiny lab in Germany proved them all wrong!

Models: are the ONLY evidence that gives rise to the cataclysmic Armageddon scenarios. We have been hotter and more CO2 before: much hotter and much more CO2 ... So EVERYTHING is based on the models! If they are wrong EVERYTHING is wrong! The models are based on mathematically provably wrong principles: we know this for a fact: we do not have initial conditions and we do not have boundary data: the models are WRONG: EoS!
We also know they are wrong because even the difference between the predicted and absorption anomaly of 25-30W/m^2 is greater than the WHOLE CO2 contribution!

THE MODELS ARE WRONG!

The Problem With Journals:
1: many of the journals are controlled by the very people who now have vested academic and/or financial incentive in AGW.
2: This is further complicated by the "Messianic" saving the world of the eco sciences where facts have given way to quasi religious principles rather than science (much like yourself by the tone of your post!)
3: Secrets: like the East Anglia CRU who held the worlds ONLY un fudged pre digital temperature records conveniently "losing" them after the FOI court win; or the secret GCM models: ask CSIRO/BoM for a copy of the code or data from the latest model runs.... NASA GIS is the only GCM code that is available: all the others are SECRET .... since when did we allow secrets in science publishing!

So basic data is secret, code and data for the GCM models is secret, initial data for the models is secret, algorithms for lost of things like correction are secret ....

And then we have academic coercion .. look at Bob Carter and Peter Ridd cases just to name 2 recent ones in one university ... don't dare speak aloud that AGW might not be true otherwise we will just terminate you!

And then we have funding for research into non AGW ... good luck with that as its handed out by politicians!

BUT if you read the IPCC report ... not not the Summary for Policy Makers which the media and pollies quote but the actual Scientific report a lot of this was in there until the most recent one henceforth it has been purged: nor more dissenting views allowed!

Hard to publish but it's there in the hard core maths, chemistry and physics journals

Rebuttal:
This was always the premise with AGW: we don't have to prove it is true YOU have to prove its false .. so when did the burden of proof reverse .. when it became politically convenient of course

Sadly I have seen over 40 years of research (in biology/medicine) the almost complete corruption of firstly the grants process and then the publication process and finally the implementation of blatant censorship at universities to appease the political agenda rather than good science. This is especially true for anything related to climate science!

I've said enough .... I got a flogging at Lennox today and I'm stuffed

tango's picture
tango's picture
tango commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15am

Plaudits for the response, Will, and hope you got a few at the ox. I miss it.

I wasn't intending to be snide, though I am completely fed up with the lack of evidence from the sceptics and the hand-brake the sceptic community feel justified in placing on action to deal with the problem. I'd have settled for openly contemptuous.

As to your facts - please, can you cite reputable sources?
Re 1. are you suggesting an average SLR of 140m across all ice ages? What is your source for this?
Re 2. As I understand it, the sea level rise since the last ice age occurred over more than 10,000 years and there's some thought about it occurring in waves rather than as a constant (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/) , so your reference to an average appears both excessive and designed to mislead.
Re 2. You also state that current SLR is approx 1mm/yr.....Donald Trump's own NOAA reckons that " The pace of global sea level rise nearly doubled from 1.7 mm/year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.1 mm/year since 1993." (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan...). It would appear you have downplayed it by a factor of three times.
If Jo Nova is the best you can do, it is no wonder that the sceptic community are not taken seriously.

If I read between the lines am I right in thinking your problem is just with the models? Your undergrad in chem/physics suggests you know a bit about part of the climate debate, but the computer science post-grad suggests your focus is the modelling and maths, and I'm not sure how far down the rabbit-hole your concern goes. I'm also concerned that a disproportionate number of the sceptics on that website are computer scientists.

CFCs and ozone was wrong...? That would be quite a headline. Can you please provide a reference for this?

If the models are wrong, surely you can't; suggest that there is a full-tilt worldwide conspiracy to stymie the process of peer-review? I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see the vested interests for climate mitigation and adaptation having anywhere near the clout of the fossil-fuel industry and its acolytes. Again, if you could point me towards some solid information rather than opinion...?

I also struggle to see your overarching point. We have coasts actively receding, we have places going underwater. Tectonic rebound might be making some places "higher" and dryer. When previous sea level rose higher than today and/or at faster rates than we are currently experiencing, the simple truth was that we didn't have the people, the infrastructure and the hard lines on maps. Everything could move and private property was a glint in the eye of a capitalist caveman. What do you propose happen to the millions of people who are becoming impacted by rising seas? Or by increasingly intense storms? The world doesn't work the same way it did in 10,000bc when the sea was coming back up. It's different, and I cannot understand why you'd stamp your foot like a toddler and say the models are wrong. It's bloody-well happening now.

I share your concerns about the politicisation of science, but do you seriously think 97% of climate scientists are so cowed by job security that they will go along with a con? It sounds more like you've been burned in some way by the science politics and have an axe to grind. I also cannot see how you can think that conservative governments around the world and in Australia for much of recent history have pushed a pro-climate agenda.

Anyway, I'm over arguing, it's making a flogging at Lennox sound easy.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 7:03am

Re 1. are you suggesting an average SLR of 140m across all ice ages? What is your source for this?

SLR:
Yes, it varies from 110m to about 140m .. is part of the standard geological record in any high school text book.

Time: yes the emergence from the last Ice Age was longer than 10k but the SLR rise (due to thermal expansion and melting!) only really occurred over the last 10k. ditto for other IAs as well: hence the "waves" of SLR

The Nova article has the references to the worlds tide level gauge records for a long time. Its what is said and proved rather than who says it!

Computers
The concern is because CSs understand that the numerical analysis component is part of the problem and they understand the issues related to solving IDEs in a converging system in a numerically limited environment ..... something even many maths majors do not! FORTRAN is designed to assist (all operations are Epsilon safe for example) but you cant get around the fact that in a converging system there is a limit to precision!

It is well know but convenently ignored that the models are WRONG .. they cannot be right for a whole lot of theoretical reasons including those I have mentioned but the single biggest one is that they dont match observations: whether its stratospheric temps at the top end or incident radiation at the surface; the errors are so large as to render the models useless UNLESS we fudge them so they add in "fake" clouds etc to make the models agree ... its just BS!!!

Funny isn't: the rate of ClO. radical was out by a factor of 10 and surprise surprise the computer models were wrong! If you profess an interest in climate and do not know this then I suspect you do not really have in interest in climate: YES CFCs did NOT cause the ozone hole: old news!

Coastlines:
IF we progress as per the last Ice Age then the sea will rise another 30-40m ... its already risen about 100m since the last Ice Age and we are well OVERDUE for this further rise ... NOTHING humans do will stop this happening!

OMFG the ol "97% of scientists agree" are u seriously using that BS "internet poll" to me ... that's the worst insult I've had here ...

Simple Summary:

1: the seas are going to rise another 30-40m in the next 1-2k years, that was always going to happen cos we are emerging form an Ice Age and we cant stop that

2: the computer models are interesting toys for predicting the weather for a few days ahead but are useless for climate modelling 20 years away

3: we are going to run out of fossil fuels in less than 100 years and unless we find an alternative energy source there wont be any surfboards to surf on: we will be back in the caves so stop spending our science budget on stupid useless feel good hand waving value signalling BS and spend it on basic physics/chemistry for solar PV/thermal/Thorium reactors/fusion/better batteries etc etc

PS to whomever it was 12 somebody yes I am an old scientist, and I surf Lennox at 6-8 and I still ride dirt bikes (a 300, 500 and 650) .... now fuck off yourself you ignorant prick!!

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 9:56am

Do you ride a mat out at Lennox , or are you just a local who surfs when lennox is only BIG?

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 3:21pm

George would have been proud of me ... yes a mat .. I didn't have a real good one .. got slapped first up and put me off a bit but my son was out there too .. he got some magic classic Lennox bombs .. was hoping someone got some pics but haven't seem any yet .. Not a local .. from up the road a but but come to Lennox when the southerly is in town....

Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake commented Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 at 7:15pm

Onya Tango and adam12, I hear ya's.

freeride76 said "I don't believe for a second that this Will Smithson is an actual scientist. Just another internet astro-turfer."

Yeppo.

I remember seeing his first post, noticing his profile pic and straight away thinking "on ya bike!"

bongsalot's picture
bongsalot's picture
bongsalot commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 8:32am

doesnt take long for the beliebers to trot out murdoch in these debates..no matter how much evidence one side has, the other side will call bs, say its not 'facts'..peer review also always comes out..97%....its worse than religion these arguments..

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 11:51am

Thanks Will for making the effort to post here and bring some good points to the table.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 12:17pm

I really don;'t see anything from Will except assertion.

and if he has any scientific training at all he'll know assertion is useless.

He says the models are wrong.

Yet models can only really be assessed as to their usefulness, ie their predictive power.
In this case, their predictive power has been broadly correct.

the basic science is understood and the models have predictive power.

So tell us again Will why the science is wrong?

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 1:05pm

Add to your comment FR Wills comments on solar / batteries / power sources are complete rubbish.

Remigogo's picture
Remigogo's picture
Remigogo commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 1:11pm

The earth says....

Just keep spinning spinning spinning,

Just keep spinning spinning spinning!

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 5:57pm

With all the concurrent climate/environmental catastrophes happening here and abroad, arguing that climate change is not real or action should not be taken regardless of perceived economics, and basing your argument on the accuracy of predictive models doesn’t make you smarter or more informed than those around you. It makes you wilfully ignorant.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 7:37pm

This is where it gets weird, lets put aside whether man influences climate change or to what degree.

But this mindset that any current drought, flood, fire, hot spell, cold spell, cyclone etc. is a result of man made climate change is just crazy. (The only valued arguments here are more localised influences, like fires from man, poor land management in particular water use, like issues with river levels)

Otherwise sorry but these weather events have and will always happen, even in cases where there might technically have been more events in the last 20 years of so in an area its so minimal that it can only been seen in data, not some mindset that oh, a flood happened today its a result of climate change.

But that's where we are at, we have shit loads of people thinking their own observations during their lifetime of weather events is science and credible and everytime we have any kind of weather event, its a result of man climate change and then these same people mock others that question mans ability to understand or predict something as complex as climate change.

FFS we couldn't even get a the Y2K thing correct a thing 100% created by man.

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 9:26pm

Tell us, those that believe we need to stop talking about if it’s true and start enacting what we have to do, what else has to happen before you believe we have to start making changes to the way we operate, and that our government should start taking climate change seriously.
What other catastrophe or scientific evidence and produced by who would change your mind.
And should the rest of us wait for that before we do something?

Y2K.........really?

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Sunday, 25 Aug 2019 at 10:51pm

You missed the point your trying to argue man made climate change is real because of certain weather events you believe are not natural here and abroad.

Which is pure BS and far from scientific and in the same post ironically call those that question the climate models wilfully ignorant.

Anyway no matter if this all turns out to be another overcooked Y2K or another hole in the ozone layer thing, we will have to wait and see, we really won't know for some time.

One thing for certain we should all be hoping its not as some say because only one thing is 100% certain, the world population will only increase and as a result at best even with action emissions will slow but never stop.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 11:44am

Indo try reading this one on climate change and how the scientists are right....

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-amazon-fires-an...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 1:43pm

That is exactly the kind of article that fuels this ignorant type hysteria of trying to link any and every weather event to climate change, straight out bad science no facts or figures.

We all know deforestation is a huge problem and its fueled by an ever growing population with an every growing culture of high consumption, not climate change.

Any rise in forest fires is also much more likely to be a direct affect of man in that area, not the affect of man in other areas of the globe.

It should be noted deforestation in itself can change regional weather that could possibly affect other regions climates though.

Another thing to note, despite deforestation and urban sprawl etc. NASA own satellite pics show we are actually seeing many areas green up due to higher C02 levels in contrast to what the article states.

And BTW where's this higher number of cyclones and cyclone swells?

And where is this drop in ocean front property prices?

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 2:14pm

So you use one small part of NASA information regarding climate change to support “it’ll be ok.........I hope” and ignore the rest of what they say. Including the links between weather events.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 5:36pm

There is two things.

1. Theorys and ideas, many of these things in time end up being incorrect.

2. Indisputable evidence, like satellite pics where you can compare two pics from two different times and see changes.

I have no idea if long term it will "be okay" or if man has an influence on climate and if so how much.

But yeah id like to be optimistic and believe its all over played, because if its not, there is nothing we can do about it, i know people want to believe they can make a difference, but sorry you can't, despite the fact Australia's carbon emissions are tiny on a world scale.

Even if the world some how did all things needed, sadly the continuing increase in world population and increasing consumption deforestation etc. will counter act all efforts made.

BTW. That said im still a supporter of good sustainable environmental practises and support a sensible transition to renewables, it just makes sense as the tech evolves to embarrass clean energy, its just a progression of technology.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 5:40pm

They are not theories and ideas, they are proven and correct. Full stop.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 5:46pm

Far far from it.

Ok so one simple question then what percentage of climate change is caused by C20 produced by man?

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 6:04pm

Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 8:06pm

Ok Andy so since 1950 the natural warming of earth coming out of ice age stopped and switched over to 100% man made warming?

You really believe that?

Its highly likely C20 released by man is adding to natural warming but its still theory and in the future we may discover other natural or man made influences at play.

BTW. I did google my question and can't find anywhere that can give a percentage idea of how much warming is natural and how much possibly from man, did get a figure though on percentage of C20 compared to other produced gases from man that are in the mix C20 only 65% and some of the other gases are predicted to be much worse in their effect on global warming..

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 6:04pm

First principles, increased CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere, the flow on effects go from there. % I have no idea.

Questions like the above are made just to try and justify your misinformed point above.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 6:20pm

Indo you could answer your own question very easily by copying and pasting into a search engine but it's pointless because your opposition is driven by ideology and so you're not open to an answer.

One thing I will grant you - every time there is a bushfire, flood or storm, for the press or whoever to state that it's definitely a sign of global warming is a stretch that doesn't help the cause.

tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 6:55pm

yeah , agree with you on the media AndyM . We all want better but convoluted hysteria won't win the masses.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/brisbane-residents-fire-up-the...

tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter's picture
tubeshooter commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 5:52pm

Judging by the predictions I imagine Red Bull is sponsoring some of the research.
But from a Johnny Cochran of science , "The models were wrong , If they can't explain the pause , they don't understand the cause.".....can't remember who said it and I don't give a fuck either , I just thought it was some funny shit to say to lighten the mood.
suit up

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 6:14pm

Indisputable evidence, like global average temperatures rising each year.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 8:17pm

All the info is out there Indo, but you need an open mind for a start...

"Skeptics of human-caused climate change have often relied on a favorite argument involving the planet’s natural climate cycles. Earth experienced plenty of natural warming and cooling phases long before humans ever began pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they’ve suggested—so the present-day warming isn’t necessarily dangerous or even that unusual.

Scientists have debunked this argument over and over again. Studies demonstrate that carbon dioxide concentrations are currently higher than they’ve been at any point in human history, global temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates, and warming is poised to surpass anything the planet has experienced in millions of years."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/current-warming-is-unparallel...

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:15am

Leaving aside the corrupted Temperature records that we are using for comparison .. 2000 years is nothing but an infinitesimal blink in geological terms and meaningless in the context of the earths 2,700,000,000 year history ...

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 12:21pm

Cherry picking.

Much more than 2000 years -
"global temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates, and warming is poised to surpass anything the planet has experienced in millions of years."

Also, if you want to think that the earth is 2.7 billion years old then you're seriously undermining your credibility.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 10:15pm

Actually folks it will be the changing oceans pH that will destroy humans (not disputed BTW) and many other species pretty much a sure thing ...............but as a mate keeps pointing out to me the earth will carry on very happy without us, the earth knowing the human experiment failed.

Indo, google ocean acidification caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Monday, 26 Aug 2019 at 10:23pm

I had sort of said my bit but this sort of utter gibberish just cant go unanswered.

Without any science but just logic we know that CO2 has been up to 20x (no thats not a typo 20x) current at up to 8000ppm and yet life on the earth and the oceans not only survived but thrived!

But if u want the science try here: http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/quageo-2019-0029.pdf

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 9:28am

Science? you are kidding its a incredibly poor article more Fox TV than science but not as bad as your statement below .....absolute shocker, more Fox TV,

"At best we have about 50 years of oil left and 100 or so years of coal left. If we don't find an alternative energy source its back to the caves for all of us!

And no solar (PV or thermal) and wind will not cut unless we find some miracle battery (unlikely cos we know the chemistry of batteries!) so we need something else .. probably fission then Thorium in the interim and then hopefully fusion ...

So stop wasting our last few precious years and resources on stupid emotional politically driven Green BS (which is what we are doing at the moment) and spend it on good basic science instead because thats the only real solution other than back to basket weaving!"

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 9:42am

A non-peer reviewed paper titled "The Hoax of Ocean Acidification" seriously...

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:12am

You haven't read it ... It was a laymans (not too technical) explanation of why acidification scare is BS.

But the simple argument is: currently we are at 400ppm CO2 .. we have been at as high as 8000ppm and life on the earth and in the oceans thrived at that time: there is a reason for that: it's explained in nice simple non scientific terms (which is why I used that article).

But as usual ... not a single argument, debate or question: just ad hominem attacks on people, ideas, integrity ... never actually address the issue ...

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:40am

8000ppm, not in the lifetime of humans as we know it.

Not sure how anyone can dispute this graph or see it as not the trigger for global warming with temperatures going up year on year and long standing historical records being broken.. The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 19th century.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:03am

No but it during the greatest proliferation of life both on the planet and in the oceans including several Ice Ages ... it's only the plants sequestering CO2 that reduced it ... its all about time scales and graph scales

Not sure how to put an image here but have a look at the pic here https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

The point is that CO2 levels much much higher then now have not been catastrophic in the past, anything but! Its only the computer models, which we know are wrong, are telling us that!

As to T records thats another debate but suffice to say that all old records were conveniently "lost" and of you understood how pre digital records were obtained and kept then you would seriously question what we are comparing to to say "record warming"

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 12:22pm

"we have been at as high as 8000ppm and life on the earth and in the oceans thrived at that time"

How did mammals fare?
Humans?

tango's picture
tango's picture
tango commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:56am

Will, calling others' contributions "gibberish" flies in the face of your earlier implied rules of engagement re me being snide.

I cannot believe that you try and pass yourself off as a legitimate scientist when the only science you can point towards is an obscure journal from a Polish University. In the current edition there's another article by the same author from the Uni of WA who has teamed up with an "independent scientist" and done an article on why the Pacific sea level rise is nothing to worry about....and I quote from their Exec Summary: "The Pacific Atolls are not being inundated because the sea level is rising much less than was thought." Mind you, while they authors rely heavily on a very select group of other authors including a few who would appear sceptical to climate, based on the titles of the papers, they do appear to have had a few of their more mainstream thoughts published in reputable journals such as Ocean and Coastal Management. Though I'm sure none of that brings any comfort to the people of Tuvalu.

If we were to accept the arguments put forward by the well-meaning folk at Real Science (which is the only reference I can quickly find for your 8000ppm figure - https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/) who are actively campaigning that climate change is a hoax and have a tagline that "science is the belief of the ignorance of the experts", then surely we also have to accept that back in the day when concentrations were that high the world was a very different place. According to them, it was 450 million years ago in the Cambrian period.

If we accept that, perhaps we could also compare the current state of the world with some of the things we know about the Cambrian. Rather than today's geography we had Gondwana. Rather than todays biodiversity, it was the time of trilobites and very primitive organisms, and there was a well-documented "explosion" of evolution according to the fossil record (which can't easily capture organisms without hard structures). The Cambrian lasted some 55 million years, which is a difficult timespan to comprehend.

Regardless of what conditions were like at any time, we now have billions of people on Earth to house and feed. We now have hard structures, property rights, infrastructure and the like which are built and insured on far shorter time periods. We don't have the luxury of even hundreds of years, let alone millions of years, for the ecosystems or human systems to migrate back and forth across landscapes in response to wetting/drying/cooling/heating cycles or sea level rise as they have been able to do in the unpopulated past. We do not have the capacity to adapt except at the margins. Arguing about the models doesn't change any of that.

Everyone agrees that climate science and the potential responses by the biophysical and anthropocentric worlds are very complex, but to try and put forward suggestions that it's not happening because the models have a mathematical flaw, or saying it was worse than this millions of years ago....it's beyond puerile, and betrays ones ignorance of the situation. To then try and sow seeds of doubt to obstruct people taking action through their governments is just criminal.

It's helpful to apply the tenets of risk management to this issue. Likelihood and consequence, that stuff. I'd be surprised if we couldn't accept that the potential risks are severe (I'd argue catastrophic as they go well beyond the physical). As for likelihood, I'd say its certain as it's happening now while you might say somewhat likely due to natural variability (as you say it's happening in response to a warming cycle and therefore more slowly). But even a severe risk which is somewhat likely to happen gets at least a high risk rating. In my world it gets a very high/critical rating given that it's deadset happening. So are you suggesting we have a high risk that at best we should do nothing about - or at worst keep on doing more of the stuff that experts believe is contributing to the problem?

So quibble about the maths underpinning the models and deny their alignment with observed trends, rage against the machine and cite sources from The Muppet Show, but keep it to yourself.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:12am

Screaming that we are all going to die is gibberish! Its nothing but quasi religious "repent now" BS!

As I said the article was in laymans terms why "acidfication" is BS! Theres no point in real science here because most either wouldnt understand it or dont have access to journals.

The levels of CO2, global temps are accepted universally by recognised techniques (usually radio graphic/isotopes) but there are errors in this.

The simple fact is that plants and animals using the same biology as we do survived and thrived in environments which according to the computer models they could not have survived: the models are WRONG!

As I said above ... we will run out of fossil fuels long before we are affected by climate. Lets stop wasting time and effort on BS precautionary stuff based on flawed computer models (which do NOT align with observations without massive fudging!!) and fix what we KNOW for certain is going to happen: running out of energy!

helmet-not-hose's picture
helmet-not-hose's picture
helmet-not-hose commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:20am

"...just ad hominem attacks on people, ideas"

It's funny when you say that, you could almost think you haven't done exactly the same thing yourself.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:25am

I have not abused anyone, called them names, challenged their honesty and have always addressed the science (within the limits of this forum)

The only "attack" is perhaps to condescend to people commenting on scientific issues they obviously have not the slightest understanding of. In other words they are talking religion/faith rather then science!

helmet-not-hose's picture
helmet-not-hose's picture
helmet-not-hose commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:33am

How do you know people haven't the slightest understanding what they're commenting on when you only know their account names?

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:45am

Because their replies either don't debate any of the science or show profound ignorance e.g. we are all going to die CO2/seawater pH rubbish above ...

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:24am

Hi Will,

Appreciate your input to the debate here; please don't stop.

156 comments and counting. Do you feel you've changed any opinions? Is there a better way we could go about this?

Personally, you haven't convinced me but at least you have given me some further points to research. I think it would help if you kept your arguments technical (as opposed to emotional) and provided more reputable references.

Otherwise, keep it up. Science is built upon a foundation of people not afraid to swim against the tide!

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:50am

The problem is that the science is SO VERY complicated that even the really bright intelligent scientists cant do it ... the combination of skills and knowledge across classical and quantum physics, organic and inorganic chemistry, arcane areas of mathematics, difficult numerical analysis related to converging systems, IT, geography and geology, hydrodynamics and aerodynamics, astrophysics, weather and and arcane areas of atmospherics like gamma ray accretion etc etc etc

We have to reply upon the very few experts and there are literally a handful of people in the whole world who would have a handle on all of this ....

The there is the political angle to complicate this .. look for example at the actual early IPCC Scientific reports then compare them to the Summary for Policy Makers (the latter is created by politicians and is the one the media/pollies see) and its like they are two different documents: they bear no resemblance to each other! Now that has been corrupted as well: the actual scientific report is not released and is back edited to be consistent with the Summary report which is released first.

All I want is

a) for people to firstly separate the politics (Green/left/socialist) part of the debate and its fine to agree with the socialist ideals for society (personally I don't agree, socialist states always end murdering and torturing too many of their own citizens but that's another argument) but don't use AGW to support it

b) to be sceptical of the so called scientific reports because most of them are built on the assumption that the climate models are 100% correct (all the warming is due to AGW) which we know they are not but seems to have been conveniently forgotten!

BTW Im not convinced either way either! I do know the models are BS for two reasons which are so long winded but basically some comments one of the few geniuses Schmidt made in the NASA GISS model code about models behaviour when you reduce the spatial/temporal resolution too far: a sure sign the model is broken (Schmidt is pro AGW and Hansen's right hand maths/coder!!) and I was also a friend of someone who worked as a numerical analyst/mathematician on Australia's GCM models at ANU/BoM/CSIRO ...

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:11pm

"The problem is that the science is SO VERY complicated that even the really bright intelligent scientists cant do it ..."

Hi Will,

Is that why Clifford Ollier in his paper,references people like James Delingpole, a second rate urger trying to pass himself off as a journalist.

And don't get me started on that fruitcake Jo Nova.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:17am

Will, it's not that we're all going to die, it's that the food and farming belts will shift and many will go starving. Changing climate means some regions will see increased rainfall and others, less so but all established agriculture and pastoral land will likely have to shift.

Water security is already an issue in a country as lucky as Australia and all these issues will only get worse. We need people to stop attacking the proven science and move on to how we're going to deal with these changes..

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:47am

Ok now we get into a debate:

1: what you said is true but that was going to happen ANYWAY! If we keep going as per the normal cycle the temps will keep rising by about 1-2C, the seas will rise by about 30-40m and previously this last phase has happened very quickly <1000 years. But I have based this on past history and geology whereas you are basing EVERYTHING on the computer predictions which we know are WRONG!

Water security has always been an issue in Australia for the few hundred millennia .. we can clearly see the records of droughts and floods in the geological record which make anything experienced since white man came piddling by comparison! And again your assertion that "its only going to get worse ..." is based on the damned computer models again!

But in the end I agree: lets move on and deal with the most urgent and pressing issue: RUNNING OUT OF ENERGY: ENERGY UNDERPINS EVERYTHING IN OUR WORLD including food water transport ... just everything ... without it we cook hunted prey on a campfire!

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:49am

I'm not basing anything on computer models, I'm going off pure observational data and records and what I can see with my own eyes.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 12:12pm

So what you are saying is that you are using observational data to predict the future climate. Generally I would have no problem with that except that what you are using is corrupt data.

Lets just take one example: T data in Australia. Neglecting for the moment that the actual RAW T data for Australia is secret (no you cant have it, you can only get the "corrected" data) lets have a look at how that data was collected before the digital era: it was collected by untrained Police/Post Office/School workers on un calibrated equipment and sporadic records kept by hand and occasionally transmitted by hand/telex/telegraph/phone to the central records of the BoM which only started in 1910.

That data was collected in the sporadically placed backyards of government buildings in unprotected boxes where anything from ACs to chimneys/flues to motor vehicles to a person to new concrete buildings to animals (yes birds often nested in the thermometer boxes!!) could have increased the T readings.

And if you think the post digital era got better think again because the whole energy using society really got going with masses of industrial heat generated right around where the vast majority of the measuring stations are situated!

The only reliable data and even that has issues is satellite data which has only been recorded since the late 70s! So we have about 30 years worth of data as we emerged from a cool period (remember they were predicting an Ice Age after the 70s cool period!).

No seriously this is the quality of the data record you are using to change the very fabric of the whole world on a 0.1-0.3C comparison!!!

PS this is just the surface data ... atmospheric data is even worse and the methods used to collect SST are nothing short of surreal!

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:20pm

Hi Will,

BOM raw data is freely available.

Globally the raw data shows a higher warming trend than the homogenised data.

That is is the adjustments made to raw data have reduced the warming trend.

And then there's Roy Spencer's data. Strung together from about five different satellites which had to be corrected for diurnal drift amongst other things, which Roy wasn't aware of until pointed out to him. He will not release his code for the latest version which just happens to show a greatly reduced warming trend, compared to all other data sources. Even so, his trend is plus 0.13C per decade.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:35pm

Only the corrected data is available!
RAW data is generally not available and never has been!

When the UN IPCC repository at East Anglia CRU was ordered by the court under FoI rules for the RAW data for the IPCC after years of court battles the RAW data was suddenly LOST! Read the "ClimateGate" emails! So we can never know what the real data was!

Satellite data is better controlled and the albedo/diurnal (and several other factors) but still just like the secret UHI algorithms used to "correct" the land data the satellite algorithms are also secret!

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:02pm

Hi Will,

Re your comment on raw data see:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs

Refer to Question 6.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:41pm

Hmm that's new, they have only done that only recently .. It was always the "munged" UHI (secret) corrected data which is what they use for the "hottest year" ever media releases.

However its only Max and Min .. think about why that's a problem (could be aberration like a bird/rat in the box or a new AC across the roof ... pushing the T up). But its still a good thing. I assume a researcher can get mass digital records including general locations (they keep the actual locations secret for obvious reasons). and the data only goes back a few years .. about 20 in most stations!

However this is not true for most countries and the UN IPCC CRU has steadfastly refused to release RAW data (see Climate Gate).

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:42pm

Please, drop the talk of conspiring of governments to adjust records upwards, and for what?? They're not even taking climate change seriously so who's winning out of this so called conspiracy..

The world's governments can't agree on anything let alone setting up and manipulating temperature records..

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 3:13pm

Can’t agree on anything ?

Western governments are basically in lock step . Those who fiddle on the margins are called extremist.

It’s neoliberalism and mass immigration all the way .

Trump is an outlier the global establishment has attempted to remove.

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 3:43pm

Data has been available for a long time.

If you want to see the homogenisation adjustments to ACORN Stations refer here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/stations/#/23090

Just click on Station List to work your way through all the stations.

You can see the adjustments made and the reasons why. The BOM methodology is also available.

As you can see some adjustments are up and some are down.

If you disagree with the finding feel free to prepare a submission and get it reviewed by suitably qualified scientists. That does not mean Jo Nova.

Good luck.

Cheers.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 12:34pm

Seems to be a reasonably lengthy and quite successful history of modelling anthropogenic climate change.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projec...

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:27pm

I wondered about this for a long time .. I came at it form another point of view: I asked the question: if the models are so technically deficient and the maths so bad how can they be so good?

The answer is they aren't!

There are lots of things that there are no models for but the three biggies are: radiative forcings and clouds and water vapour. The simple answer is we don't have a mathematical model for the three most important factors so guess what .. the modellers just said: we will fudge it .. yes that's what they did ... they literally just invented numbers for forcing, cloud cover and RH and then kept "fudging" these numbers (not mathematical models but just numbers) until the model output agreed with the "observed" historical data (keep in mind what I said about the quality of historical data above!).

And so they fudged lots of important parameters for the models using hind-casting until the models agreed with the historical data and then said oh well we can now trust the models to predict 50 100 years into the future ... BS!!

Remember what I I aid above about what happens to the models if we reduce the resolution (if the model is good should be better outcome ...) but it doesn't the models crash! And that's because the fudging doesn't work when we really test the models!

Here is a technical discussion of forcing used by NASA (the only public model): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
you might not get the tech but the gist is : we FUDGED it!

Similarly and even worse for RH and clouds!

Models are BS and they even proved it: we know a lot about Mars, its a very simple planet: no oceans, no clouds, no water , no mountains, just a simple atmosphere which we know more about than earths: they ran the climate models on simple plain basic Mars and they didn't even get close!

I mentioned the absorption anomaly above: the models predict a certain incident radiation at the surface of the earth and we can measure that: the difference between the observed and predicted [from models] is 25-30Wm^2 .. the WHOLE contribution of CO2 is about 5Wm^2 so the error in the models is 5x the WHOLE CO2 contribution : the models are BS!

They are interesting toys for predicting the weather a few days or weeks ahead but that is all they are useful for UNTIL we get much much better !!

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:43pm

Sorry mate but your assertion they are wrong is not backed up the available evidence.

even allowing for the fact certain important processes may be crudely understood the models are proving useful in their predictive power.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:22pm

I agree .. for weather a few days ahead they seem to work about 70% of the time ... bit for climate 50 years ... ahh nah!

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 1:58pm

"if the models are so technically deficient and the maths so bad how can they be so good?"

You haven't even begun to demonstrate this.

Hey I'm wondering Will, do you shape surfboards?

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:17pm

as to the maths you haven't read the above on models

shape ... yes in my spare time .. try to ...

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:01pm

I think it's possible to have a reasonaly informed position on AGM without caring about the efficacy of models one way or another.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:21pm

No sure what AGM is but it you mean AGW then yes I agree, I just don't see it (and it isn't!) our most urgent problem. I see the following:

1: energy
2: water
3: conflict USA/Russia/China
4: Armageddon viruses/bacteria
5: meteor
6: mega volcano

XX: climate change with an Ice Age being the most feared!

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:50pm

Err yeah...AGW...not an Annual General Meeting, though those things should be feared too.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:50pm

AGM...........snicker......

sorry Stu, that made me laugh.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 2:54pm

That's my last shot at pomposity.

No More Acronyms.

NMA

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 5:35pm

You missed unsustainable population growth in your list Will its without a doubt the number one problem in the world today its the driver behind energy and water issues, deforestation and man made global warming (if one day confirmed) not sure how you deal with it though, its only going to increase and all these problems will get worse.

BTW. That ocean acidity thing is a good read id love to hear the opposing view on it, im only an ordinary guy but it actually made sense.

Makes you super suss when its obvious they are misusing words like acidic obviously to put fear in peoples heads.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 6:03pm

Its shocker really, profound statements like the oceans wont become acid, acidification is an inaccurate term then the really heavy hitting term alarmist, got to about the 2nd or 3rd one and thought is was a setup seriously not to mention how good co2 is for everything.

There has been a a fair amount of work done on the issue just like CC the probabilities are there.

My issue with Will is his terms of absolute to narrow points then applying to the total, making tribal politic points then criticising the problems around doing just that not to mention total ignorance about energy.

Sounds more management than research but still welcome the commentary for a quite arvo local breaks close due to to a 3mt GW going fishing 75mt of the beach.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 7:34pm

World population has slowed to 1% overall and at current trend will go into negative growth within 20 years. Australia is perfect example: white anglo saxons are not reproducing ourselves: we are dying out and only immigration is causing an increase!. Within a few generations WASPs will be relegated to history ... fuck Darwin ...

Deforestation is a serious issue for the the most important species on earth: the pollinators birds, insects and bats! (no ... algae are the main producers of O2!!)

The acid thing was OK ... there's some errors in it but its OK for starters ... sea water chemistry is actually really really Really REALLY complex: all sorts of stuff being washed in, all the animals, algae, bacteria, rain, pollution, soils, volcanoes ... no one really knows ...

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Tuesday, 27 Aug 2019 at 11:57pm

We're all too often blinded by science that ignores the human element.
2,000 yr blip on a chart is never deemed meaningless over the course of history.
Back then you'd squeeze whole world into Brisbane...What's a world & does it float?
New world of 7.5b - each raindrop gets a name & each grain of sand is a diamond.

Oz neighbouring nation's capital is sinking 10 cm's a year. Epic $50b moving bill !

Pollies push for more power! (Run cleaner for longer on less, you're branded a witch).
Too wet for Floods,Too Dry for Droughts & ever ready fuel for Fires...(We're Doomed!)

No worries Oz Govt are so smart they'll quango a rort onto 100yr Pacific Solution.
Acting Oz PM Akubrahat Contriver even outsmarted himself.

Acting Oz PM reckons sinking Pacific neighbours can always pick fruit at Stanthorpe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/11381968-3x2-700x467.jpg

Wet Townsvillians can wave to chopper, whilst collecting coconuts from Fiji Palms.
https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/1ac66693569bdf6cda93e3fb1b7b123d?...

Parched Qld fruit growers can always scrub Big Chief's back in Pacific Spa bath.
https://archive-media-1.nyafuu.org/wg/image/1398/81/1398816478450.jpg

Speaking of right wing colonialists...We also have charts for criminals.
Americans are their own worst enemy who least trust their neighbours!
Rightwing U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. never need an excuse to lock up Socialist traitors.
Socialist's in turn may challenge authority by pushing the law.(What bigger threat?)

25% of world prisoners (250m) are locked away in US prisons.
65% of US criminals serving time are Right Wing Christians (That darn Gun Lobby)
Right wing nutters locking up violent right wing nutters on a Global Scale.

Trump householder gun draw wins a Prison Pack of Town Sheriff / Jobs & housing.
USA Socialists wish to gear down Prison Machine...(debate is over before it begins)

Qld Climate Change 2019 Record - Floods/Heat/Droughts + Huge Cylcones/ECL's
Qldurrz were wooed by nostalgic Joh Speak ( Scomos banned Words list)...
Climate, Water, Boat, Arrival, Buyback, Coal, Coral, Clean, Reef, Bleaching, Murray, River, New, Start, NBN, LGBTQIA, ABC, Raid/s, Corrupt, Change, Getup, Women, Shove, Sock, Throat, Jacinda, Ashes, China, Tuvalu, Cayman, Cocos, Keeling, Saibai, Islands, Daintree, Port, Douglas, Offshore, Accounts, Processing, Visas, Medivac, Hello ,World, ihadago, and, Lost, Treaty, Uluru, Statement, Sorry, Multicultural, Angus, Taylor, Jam, Land, Turnbull, knifing, spill, mate, "who" (US President's spelling)

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 6:14am

If you are talking human tragedy then 30,000 children die every day from preventable causes .....

that's 1250 children every hour
that's 21 children every minute
that's 1 child every 3 seconds
24 hours a day, 365 days a year , year after year after year ...

that's not some prediction from a computer model ... that's real human tragedy!!!

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 6:18am

“The tactic of sowing doubt works, because there can be reluctance to change policy or regulation in the face of doubt. But absolute certainty is rare. It does not mean that what we know is wrong.”

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 10:40am

......And you win this forum!

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 10:46am

Indeed it's an incredibly well oiled machine that sows said doubt. For instance, I listen to a particular radio station daily and it's incredible how good they are at it, they've got this recipe of slipping in the doubt (or an extremely conservative view) in with some other general empathetic or emotive message, it's so slick you barely even know you've been fed it...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 11:57am

You guys sound like religious people after people are questioning their blind faith.

Its far from a scientific approach when you don't take all scientific views on board and keep reassessing what we know, problem as we all know is its no longer about science its about politics and money

If Will was saying renewables suck we need to burn more coal and oil and cut down our forrest etc. then yeah write him off as some climate denier rather than a climate skeptic.

But just like me, it seems he thinks our energy needs moving forward are an important issue and the development of renewables an important thing even if mans influence on climate ends up being minimal or the dooms day scenarios way over cooked we both support things like renewables because well to me it just seems like smart way to create energy.

Just remember end of the day who are the ones believing in in the new generation of lasts day on earth armageddon scenario and how we all look back on those who blindly believed in past last day on earth is coming scenarios.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 1:56pm

Energy............what a mess particularly eastern states currently in Australia there isn't a policy, last 25 years of policy turmoil has got us to this point where Victoria is hoping for perfect conditions to keep the lights on, energy prices through the roof, gas sold off then resold to domestic uses higher than export prices.

That's before you get to the political, cultural, right wing nut job, vested interests, disinformation BS affecting renewable's.

The technical and engineering capability exists right now to go to renewable's that's not including hydrogen and diffidently not including Fission..

Instead of a 5, 10, 20 ,30, year plans there is pretty much SFA.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 3:20pm

Only area that is true is gas, which agree is a mess, otherwise its just simply not true.

Our main source of energy is coal, why because we have plenty of it and easily accessible it was a simple and common sense to get our energy in this way in the past, however no doubt we will move away from coal fired energy as the lifespans of our power stations end, but no we won't shut down power stations without ability to replace them.

Apart from small black coal plants loy yang was the last big coal fired power plant, built in the 80s so its not like we are building new big coal fired power stations.

Renewables: per capita we have the highest uptake of roof top solar in the world, this has happened because of government federal and state schemes encouraging people to put roof top solar on.

We also already have about 100 wind farms in Australia and a number of commercial solar farms including the one Adani opened just a few months ago in QLD

Studies show at current rates we are on track to over 70% renewables by 2030, if you want to be conservative we could say 50% plus.

In regard to tech its getting better all the time, but still storage is the issue.

For many its about when to pull the trigger, its like buying any new tech based product, if you buy in too early its costly and you end up with old tech, wait a little and prices are cheaper with much better tech, the whole area is so much better then ten years ago though.

Prices are dictated by many factors, but high mains electricity is actually the biggest incentive to people putting on roof top.solar.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 3:33pm

and then there were the Germans ....phased out coal , nuclear by 2022 .....how does one explain Australia's energy problems when Germany are....

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/08/germany-breaks-solar-record-gets-85...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 7:46pm

Silly to compare Australia to other countries, each country has a different history of sources of energy due to resources available etc and at different stages of the life span of their energy sources, so will make transition to renewables at different rates based on things like age of current power plants and economic factors.

BTW. what is this energy problem in Australia?

We have reliable affordable energy, dont know about where you live, but where i live its super rare to get a black out.

Germany is a weird one, their transition to renewables hasn't been smooth sailing, energy prices have risen but emissions not dropping as predicted, mostly because dropping nuclear achieved very little reduction emission wise, they also pay the highest electricity prices in europe.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:52am

spoken like a true denier , "Silly to compare Australia to other countries, each country has a different history of sources of energy due to resources available etc and at different stages of the life span of their energy sources, so will make transition to renewables at different rates based on things like age of current power plants and economic factors."
So an industrial Country who polluted their own back yard , used technology to clean it up , went to renewables , shut down their coal industry , is shutting down their nuclear plants ...so nothing to learn here from one of the worlds most stable countries in looking at a cleaner eco future?
It has been announced by the Vic govt that this summer there will be blackouts , to the point where even business's like Coca Cola are quoted as saying Victoria is like a 3rd world country when dealing with the Vic power grid!
How can you say emissions not dropping,link? nuclear is not about emissions , its the byproduct of the reactors and if there is a problem( meltdown) how do you fix it and it will destroy the surrounding area...
So they now have guaranteed electricity...we do not!!

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:20am

Germany only survives because it buys "dirty" energy from coal and nuclear from other countries: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-...

As to nuclear: ever heard of Thorium .. look it up .. Sydney uni has one of the most advanced Thorium reactor programs in the world but can't get any funding .. partially because we pour BILLIONS into stupid hand waving virtue signalling feel good crap like "hot rocks" and bats and climate councils and other BS!

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 11:01am

Hi Will,

"partially because we pour BILLIONS into stupid hand waving virtue signalling feel good crap"

Globally USD4.8billion is spent DAILY on military expenditure. And what do we get for it?

How good is that!!!

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 2:28pm

reading your link was educational , as you can see that the biggest problem Germany has with fossil fuels is the transport industry , which Hybrid electric could solve ...
I use Germany as an example because they are really trying to clean up their act and look for more renewable solutions...you just have to look at....
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-a... you can see how they are trying wean themselves off coal and oil!
Thorium.....ah dare we go down the fossil fuel lobby and work out why they don' want this technology.....??

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 2:00pm

Brutus Stop misquting me i didn't say emissions aren't dropping, i said not dropping as predicted.

Google the topic.

Edit: related read: first drop in Germany's emissions in 4 years, ironically due to warm weather though

https://www.apnews.com/24711c51433b464e962f162bb92c2b41

Stop being so ignorant, things get replaced as needed, transition to renewables is just that a transition.

You want to see energy problems in Australia ?

Best way to do that is to shut down coal fired power stations before we are ready to to so, achieving virtually nothing to world emissions.

BTW. Im not a denier im a skeptic, a skeptic has an open mind and looks at all aspects of the issue, not like blind religious like believers of dooms day scenarios and their the end is near plaqyad hanging from their necks.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 2:14pm

I don't want to shut down coal powered power stations until we have a better system , it's amazing when you look at the USA where coal mining is struggling , as the power stations are now changing quickly to gas from coal...gee wish we had some gas in Australia and didn't have to build a port in Western Port so we can ship our gas in.
I am skeptic also , and take onboard the current state of the planet and believe that there is a strong case to start planning for the worse and hope for the best...it's called an insurance policy for our future ......
The end is near to the lifestyle us baby boomers have lived , we are leaving the planet in a worse condition than when we were born, and the debt we leave our children is a crisis of our making......or do you think that's a good thing?

Distracted's picture
Distracted's picture
Distracted commented Wednesday, 28 Aug 2019 at 3:07pm

May be hard to prove at this point in time but wonder if these polar vortex events are associated with climate change.... and what implications are for surf in a few weeks.
https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/sudden-stratospheric-warming-what-...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 1:24pm

Another good read on renewables in Australia

A new report has found that Australia is installing renewables at world-leading pace and is on track to ‘significantly’ exceed the 2020 Renewable Energy Target (RET).

https://arena.gov.au/blog/australian-renewables-growing-at-record-rates/

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 2:23pm

All this talk about renewables .. its off topic but here's a little factoid Ill just throw in like a grenade ..

Australia could build 3 dams and supply ALL of our water and energy needs for the next century!

Why don't we build the dams

(NB: Australia's 3 World Heritage Listed Parks are ALL built around man made dams: Tasmania; Kosciusko and Blue Mountains!!!)

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 4:34pm

Here you go Will.

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/dashboards/#/water-storages/summary/state

It might explain things to you.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 5:56pm

Explain what .. that there are now 25 million people using dams that were designed and built for 6 million ... didn't need that explained ...

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:53pm

Hi Will,

I’ll translate that for you.

The rain isn’t falling the way in the volumes and locations it used to.

Look at the Murray Darling Basin today. Lack of rain and poor management have created a disaster.

Cheers

Terminal's picture
Terminal's picture
Terminal commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 4:57pm

I reckon you and I tune into the same radio station

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 5:50pm

We don't build dams because no matter where they are proposed there is strong opposition.

Waster levels in dams is irrelevant better 20 half full dams than 10 half full dams.

Plus governments often don't plan for long term unless it gets them reelected.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 5:54pm

The dams would be up in the tropical north .. they get METRES and METRES of rain .. we can use the rain to fill the dams and then run back out to sea to generate power and even divert some of it to the south ...

But like u say ... no more long term planning in politics ...

A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog's picture
A Salty Dog commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:48pm

This has been discussed many times over the years and has never been found to be viable.

Also, the rain is seasonal and evaporation rates high.

Cheers

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 7:14pm

If you want to speak to someone who knows better than thousands of the world's top scientists, is more on top of it than all of the world's meteorological and climatological agencies and could single-handedly solve Australia's water and energy issues, just talk to Will.

Might even design a mean wavepool.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:00pm

Just out of interest did you know that you have never EVER heard a CSIRO or BoM scientist speak about climate! That's because they are specifically BANNED form talking to anyone (the media, forums, social media even family!) .. so when you say "thousands of the world's top scientists, is more on top of it than all of the world's meteorological and climatological agencies" its just more BS!

What you have seen and heard are the PR people and funding spin doctors and political animals .... NOT the scientists!

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:04pm

Mmm, none of that info comes from scientists and their research, it's all made up by PR people.
Speaking of PR, you sound like you're spruiking straight from the IPA handbook.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:09pm

Really..?

David Jones did a PhD in Earth Sciences and joined the BOM in 2002 as the supervisor of Climate Analysis. 

Here's a list of the 15 articles he's written for The Conversation (while working at the Bureau), many of them about climate change: https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-jones-2467/articles

Here's an article written for Fairfax (again, while at the Bureau) titled our 'Hot, dry future' that points the finger at AGW.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:29pm

He's a puppet for the loonie left Stu, dincha know?

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:43pm

I'm curious how he can get that point so demonstrably wrong. 

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:40pm

I said they were banned from TALKING about climate but not from papers because the spin doctors have to PRE APPROVE all public information. So that "article" you are talking about (and others) was authorised and edited by the spin doctors ....

Ask David Jones if he will come on this or any other public forum and TALK or give unscripted and/or unauthorised information to anyone! The reason is that ALL public utterances MUST be authorised by the PR people and MUST toe the political/funding agenda ... the same goes for ANU staff (where the main BoM and CSIRO headquarters are located) who are also banned form any public comment ..... they cant even tell you they are banned form unauthorised public comment ..... you might like to wonder how I know this ???

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 6:47am

David spoke at a seminar a few weeks ago:

"Speaking during a Bureau of Meteorology seminar on climate, BOM climatologist David Jones said the drought had now exceeded the Federation Drought, the WWII drought and the Millennium drought in terms of its severity through the Murray Darling Basin (MDB)."

https://www.merimbulanewsweekly.com.au/story/6281486/drought-now-officia...

The BOM website suggests it's an ongoing thing too.

"Representatives from the Bureau of Meteorology are regularly requested to make presentations at industry events and conferences. These are opportunities for us to engage and educate about our role in water information."

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/newEvents/presentations/index.shtml

Plenty of BOM Research Community Seminars here too (with speakers from BOM, CSIRO plus a wide range of overseas educational institutions):

http://www.bom.gov.au/research/research-seminars.shtml

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 7:59pm

Dams are just opposed full stop by the loonie "fingers in the ears ..no dams .. no dams ... no dams .... can't hear you" NO DAMS brigade!

There has never been a serious assessment of a combined hydro and piped water in the Cape/Gulf area.

As to seasonal ahh yes that's why you have a dam to store water during the rain for periods when its not .... and no this is the tropics .. its humid all year around especially on the Cape and Gulf: evaporation is actually quite low!

As for rainfall the statement above is just BS: rainfall statistics are here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_031011.shtml

And if you go here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/#tabs=Rainfall-tracker

You will see that on average our rainfall for the last few years ...is .... well .... average: more in the West, less in the East and average for most. Track back to the early 1900s thru to 1914/15/ if u want to see a real drought!!

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:45pm

where would you build the dams?

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 8:39pm

Will, apart from the Wet Tropics south of Cairns, virtually all of Northern Australia sees evaporation exceed rainfall - evaporation is generally between 2000 and 2400mm per year.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're a bit of a bullshit artist.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:25pm

Oh are u really serious ... have you seen the river flows out to sea in wet season ... hahahaha the fact that you could even make such an assertion is just so far beyond credulous as to be bordering on psychotic delusion .... What you say is the actual geographical definition of "desert" look it up!

Just to see hear and feel Twin Falls or Barron Falls in the wet is staggering for the senses .. and that's just two of hundreds of massive rivers that flow out to sea!

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:54pm

Look on the BOM site mate, the facts are clear, just like the fact that you are a bullshitter.

http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/evaporation/

Oh that’s right, these figures are a plot by those loonie lefties in who are controlled by spin doctors :)

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:59pm

Could not have picked a more perfect example of how people who do not understand science or technology should NOT comment on things they do not understand:

THIS IS NOT ACTUAL EVAPORATION it is THEORETICAL EVAPORATION FROM A PAN OF WATER YOU MORON!

Quote from the top of the page:

These evaporation maps show the amount of water which evaporates from an open pan...

Now stop making a complete fuckwit of yourself!

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:16pm

Yes it’s in a pan and yes this is how evaporation is calculated - these rates ARE used to calculate evaporation from water bodies and they ARE used by farmers to figure out how much water their stock needs.
Regardless that pan is higher than actual evaporation, most places in northern Australia still have a higher evaporation rate than precipitation.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 6:36am

Some deity please give me strength!

I will say this in simple slow words:

A dam takes shallow water from a LARGE SURFACE area e.g. rainfall via rivers, valleys, terrain etc and concentrates it into a deep but SMALL SURFACE area so the THEORETICAL PAN EVAPORATION RATE from said SMALL SURFACE area is IRRELEVANT to a DAM that collects water from a much LARGER SURFACE area!

Simple enough .... do you get it now ....

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 9:19am

still really interested in your 3 dams theory that would solve Australia's water and electricity needs for the next 100 years!
Please explain?

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 6:46pm

Your words, referring to Northern Australia generally - “evaporation is actually quite low!”
I understand the concept behind dams, storage and surface area, I merely pointed out that evaporation in Northern Australia is actually very high as shown by the BOM, regardless whether it’s in a pan or in a water body without metal sides!
And your definition of a desert is bullshit - you are a bullshitter.

You are full of shit.

rich74's picture
rich74's picture
rich74 commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 9:03pm

couldn't agree more..changing peoples opinions, particularly close minded people is one of the hardest challenges around. i wonder if his caps lock button is worn out on his keyboard yet. his arguments are as compelling as malcolm roberts, he could probably get a run with one nation too

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 6:51pm

By the way, where are these “hundreds of massive rivers” in northern Australia?

You’re on crack.

Just take it easy on the wife and kids.
And the dog.

jayet-010's picture
jayet-010's picture
jayet-010 commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 9:40am

Will, your original objective was to inform and influence those on this site who are interested enough to vote and make a difference.

The frustration you're feeling in communicating your message may be due to the intransigent nature of your audience, or may be that you need to seriously reflect upon your beliefs and the motivations underlying those beliefs. Personal growth can be hard but I strongly support you taking a period to reflect upon your beliefs and consider whether you may be wrong. And if you're not wrong than you truly are a rare man.

All the best

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:00pm

Will.S = T.Roll extraordinaire.
Undermines the credibility of his own 'balanced' perspective by constantly cooking off at the left, claiming an global government AGW conspiracy supported by the 'science industry' but failing to acknowledge the motivation and complicity of the right and fossil fuel corporations in elevating marginal scientific viewpoints and demanding equal consideration.

will.smithson's picture
will.smithson's picture
will.smithson commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:40pm

Enough: this was about the ability of climate models to predict things like waves and wind and the effect on coasts .. we are way off topic ...

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:24pm

Enough?
You've brought this on yourself. I was generally interested in what you had to say until every second post was polluted with polarising political jibes about virtue signalling, lefties and global conspiracies. How is that limiting the conversation to modelling?
A little 'snowflakey' perchance?

So, you've got an issue with the modelling, but how do you justify supporting an ongoing and entrenched dependency on legacy tech, with known environmental impacts? Or do you consider the wait and see approach as more prudent? This is the bit that I don't understand about denier / sceptics position.

Patrick's picture
Patrick's picture
Patrick commented Sunday, 1 Sep 2019 at 5:02pm

I liked reading your posts will.smithson
Cheers.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:47pm

ID you were saying power was reliable, this is the situation in Vic for power from an insider

"Looking at the immediate future, Victoria's in a world of pain if the various major problems aren't fixed by the end of the year. With the major failures at Loy Yang A and Mortlake, the extended outage of two units at Somerton, ongoing issues at Yallourn and now a major transmission failure onshore in Victoria cutting all supply between Tasmania and Victoria, it's all rather shaky that's for sure."

Did you know 12% of your power comes from SA, 8% from NSW?

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 29 Aug 2019 at 11:14pm

All i know is when i was young black outs were fairly regular and last 25 years or so they are super rare, even if it happens its not for very long, i have no idea how they get the power back on so quick after storms etc but in the 80s it would go off for ages

I think people also have to remember we are in a transition to renewables, considering this we are doing amazing.

Sorry for the positivity, just telling it how i see it, i dont have anything to complain about, even prices imho are good value electricity is so important in our life's it cost us very little

Council rates though, high way robbery for little more than a bin pick up service or the fees charged to dispose crap at the tip is just crazy, i can go and get a trailer of mulch etc. cheaper than i get charged for getting rid of a trailer of stuff.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 10:59am

hmmm......https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-s-greenho...

So Australia is 1/2 way to meeting it's targets , as our greenhouse emissions are still going up!

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 11:56am

Did i read that article correct?

Seems all our onshore emissions are dropping but seems they are including our gas exports as our emissions?

Very weird if that is the case, gas is much cleaner than burning coal, if gas is not provided by us countries could be forced to burn coal instead increasing world emissions, same deal with us exporting quality coal, if we don't export it countries are often forced to burn higher polluting coal.

But hey why look at the bigger picture?

As Blowin has pointed out many times our high immigration rates are also an issue, more people equals higher emissions.

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 1:26pm

indo-dreaming is upfront...back in Joh's days we had rolling blackouts lasting 2 weeks.

Fri 21st Dec 2018 Central Gold Coast was hit by massive winds / Thunderstorm. tbb watched the dread loom overhead & no more than a good gust & 2 lightning bolts, resulted in a power blackout. Here at Reedy Creek we salvaged some fresh food as our power was returned on Sun Night 23rd Dec. Other central GC towns banking [M1]central East Coast were without until after Xmas. (6 days later)
http://www.mygc.com.au/severe-storms-hitting-the-gold-coast-after-a-scor...

Last Tuesday Night power was cut to Bne CBD & Bridge is out of action until Monday.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-29/roads-closed-brisbane-victoria-br...

Qld Rolling Blackouts still roll...apart from here, last xmas blackout was forgotten.
(1980's) 2 weeks (2018-9) 5-6 days.

28th September 2016 a Cat 3 Cyclone strikes South Australia. Naturally knocking down power lines as Cyclones do, resulting in blackouts. Clearly a typical Cyclonic Blackout, so naturally hardly National News! However by the grace of God a miracle happened & SA power was restored within 24hrs. Now that's Big News! Yet Libs swear the whole Country stared down an almighty renewable Doomsday Demon. We Qldurrz will never buy into that...Oops! tbb spoke to soon.

Libs know it's much wiser to invest in Power Point Presentations rather than the fake news Power Grid. Libs ordered a dozen or so each of Coal for Dole Studies.

Inquiries/Commissions/Reports/Committees/Analysis/Reviews/CaseStudies/Investigations/Overviews/Evaluation/Audits/Modelling/Research Papers/Surveys/

Spoiler! Crew already knew who the Demon was. Windmill Monster did it...let's get him boys...Sue him! Sue Him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoL6a37d1Rg

(Who stuck the fork in the toaster...High Court Drama!) Together we pray for the healing of SA 9/28 ...may we never again milketh the Monster..."Yeah Right!"

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 3:19pm

@ Indo, Sorry for the positivity

I admire your positive force shield ID would help if you could run around screaming the sky is falling and get with the program.

With endless coal, gas, wind, sun and arid areas for renewable's with little to no impact the transition should be repetitively easy, hydrogen on the horizon is a no brainier our current fuel reserve is around 26 to 28 days win win for environment and security.

Forget nuclear as we don't / wont have the capability for enrichment of the uranium oxide plus the 20 to 30 year lead time then there is the not in my back yard that's before you work out what to do with the waste.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 8:21pm

Sorry i just can't do the sky is falling thing and super sceptical on it all, expect is seriously over cooked and driven more by politics and money.

BUT that said i honestly want to get solar on in the year as just finished a big extension and just makes sense and i drive a small tradie car for low fuel consumption and try to reduce waste where possible even thinking of reducing meat in diet just for health.

So even though im sceptical im not against reducing my carbon foot print but more because i think its a good thing rather than doing it out of fear or thinking its going to make any difference.

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Friday, 30 Aug 2019 at 10:20am

Former Minister for Stop Start NBN + Is this your Census! + Hey! That's My Health?
Angus Taylor is now Minister for Energy Corruption & (Emissions Production).
Law of the Land states Snowy pioneer reserved all Oz water for grandson Angus.
Hon' Angus flood proofs Oz by channelling all Dams & Rivers via Cayman Islands.

Quango #1. Nothing suss that water Baron Angus is Oz Libs greatest ever Donor.
Flat earth Libs are banking on plenty of Climate Change, dddon't you worry 'bout that.

D-Rex's picture
D-Rex's picture
D-Rex commented Saturday, 31 Aug 2019 at 8:29pm

I'm with ya will.s. No amount of logical counter-argument will sway the climate change hysterians who populate this site. Rising sea levels? Not at Snapper baby!
http://www.triggerbrothers.com.au/surf-cam/snapper-rocks-surfcam/

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Saturday, 31 Aug 2019 at 11:15pm
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher commented Sunday, 1 Sep 2019 at 9:49am

velocityjohnno's frozen treat has the crew going ape.
Frozen bananas are now more a peeling than ever...
New Climate Change Recipe is nummy num nums!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OwfSCRz3fCM/hqdefault.jpg

D-Rex's picture
D-Rex's picture
D-Rex commented Sunday, 1 Sep 2019 at 3:47pm

Hang on... maybe there is something to this CC thing afterall...
https://imgur.com/QyUFXLo