But but but, they said the science was settled.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

You missed his point.

AGW skeptics aren't claiming to know what the weather will do in 50 years time.
AGW proponents are.

No the scientists convinced of global warming are predicting what the climate will be like in 50 years not the weather.


JP

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No the scientists convinced of global warming are predicting what the climate will be like in 50 years not the weather.

Semantics.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No the scientists convinced of global warming are predicting what the climate will be like in 50 years not the weather.


JP

So would it be fair to say that the AGW is generally predicated on increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere manifesting into higher global temperatures?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

Semantics.

No,
the definition and intent is most important and missunderstood...

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No,
the definition and intent is most important and missunderstood...

Bulldust, it's semantics in the context of what point irish2 was trying to make and the then the next couple posts.

The actual definition and intent is well understood.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

Bulldust, it's semantics in the context of what point irish2 was trying to make and the then the next couple posts.

Originally Posted by Sox

The actual definition and intent is well understood.

the thread is littered with a misunderstanding or misuse of the terms.
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.
So to demand weather predictions for tomorrow of people who study climate over 50+ years is ridiculous.

Those who have studies climate change (not weather change) have used what tools are available to study periods of hundreds if not thousands of years. They have noted change, some have predicted as a result of this change we will see more extremes, bigger storms, longer heatwaves deeper snow in some parts of the globe all comensurate with a warmer atmosphere. Other scientists have extrapolated the effects of this change. For better or worse the consensus points in one direction.

JP

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

the thread is littered with a misunderstanding or misuse of the terms.
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.
So to demand weather predictions for tomorrow of people who study climate over 50+ years is ridiculous.

Those who have studies climate change (not weather change) have used what tools are available to study periods of hundreds if not thousands of years. They have noted change, some have predicted as a result of this change we will see more extremes, bigger storms, longer heatwaves deeper snow in some parts of the globe all comensurate with a warmer atmosphere. Other scientists have extrapolated the effects of this change. For better or worse the consensus points in one direction.

JP

You love going off on a tangent aye...

It's all interrelated, and anyone who isn't nit picking knows exactly what was meant.

As I said, semantics.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

You love going off on a tangent aye...

It's all interrelated, and anyone who isn't nit picking knows exactly what was meant.

As I said, semantics.

Its not semantics to explain how nobody can predict weather tomorrow (as you defend in Irish's question) yet can predict with a scientific theoretical certainty the climate in 50, or 100+ years if we follow a particular course of actions or inactions.
To have a debate, as we are here, the exact understanding of the language that is important to the debate is imperative. Otherwise we argue the same point or turn in circles frustrated at another misunderstanding it cheap ens the debate when we do that!
JP

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Its not semantics to explain how nobody can predict weather tomorrow (as you defend in Irish's question) yet can predict with a scientific theoretical certainty the climate in 50, or 100+ years if we follow a particular course of actions or inactions.

But we can't predict what will happen in 50+ years with any certainty.
Which brings us back to why I mentioned something along the lines of semantics.

To have a debate, as we are here, the exact understanding of the language that is important to the debate is imperative.

Perhaps, if we're digging deep, which the post in question wasn't.

Otherwise we argue the same point or turn in circles frustrated at another misunderstanding it cheap ens the debate when we do that!
JP

Umm, I guess you've missed the last 8 pages then.

[BHDOGS]

This thread had a point andddddddddddd its gone

[Davehoos]

But but but, they said the science was settled.

The climate government dude on radio national said that the weather hasn't changed locally because Australians have settled in areas that don't have variable climate. they have settled near water that stays constant.
Its the Australian climate in areas that don't have large body of water that will have climate issues-not weather issues.

If you cant under stand this basic statement then join the 1/3 of Australian that burst into tears because the tax isn't at $50 a ton.

P/s lots of celebrations today. The taxes LGA had to pay are to be handed back so we can modify the region cope with the climate.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Davehoos

But but but, they said the science was settled.

The climate government dude on radio national said that the weather hasn't changed locally because Australians have settled in areas that don't have variable climate. they have settled near water that stays constant.
Its the Australian climate in areas that don't have large body of water that will have climate issues-not weather issues.

Cool, who said this and have you got a link to the conversation?

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

don’t forget the oceans also house the largest sink for carbon as well
Acknowledging that human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural carbon sinks and has been for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, carbon dioxide levels were quite steady because of this natural balance. (scientifically verified)

42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%). A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%). In a balanced system this carbon dioxide output would have an equal sequester or sink to take it back to help maintain balance.

On occasion the balance has been out of kilter, in worst scenarios near all mega fauna died in relatively short time geologically speaking! At the moment with the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutions we are tipping into the atmosphere the rate at which we are deforesting the land, poisoning the oceans and generally upsetting the balance I believe we are tipping the balance the wrong way. (scientifically verified)

What does this mean, change! possibly significant change which may not lead to our extinction in the next 50-100 years, our lifetime, but may lead to disruption that puts undue pressure on populations. Look at the mass migration due to wars, millions fleeing a city. think what the masses fleeing environmental degradation which could have a significantly larger and broader impact to certain areas. Imagine what they may think of a 'clean' country like Australia as a destination.

We already have huge numbers of 'foreigners' migrating through choice for a better life. Imagine what that will turn too if they have no alternative. The human story is one of migration through need, in search of a better life to avoid persecution or find kinder environments

JP

I know what your on about with that last paragraph . We are full to the brim with persecuted southerners who couldn't handle the cold ( and Kennet ) . Now that you have driven up our house , electricity costs and filled our roads to breaking point can you kindly p...ss off back to where you came from . As j.p says , and its the gospel , it is only going to get warmer, so get out while you can !
Your right , they are coming from for the kinder environment , but it is the not the climate that is the cruncher . It is the ahh, how should I put it fiscal benefits that make Australia the land of opportunity .

[monte.b]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Gravity is also a theory.
Do you understand the difference between theory and hypothesis in the scientific community?

Im just an uneducated old boilermaaker ,on the other hand you must be a scientist, so why dont you explain the difference

[GREGL]

A theory is what you have when you are applying for funds , a hypothesis is the proof that at least in theory that you have done something to earn more funds .

[superyob]

Originally Posted by monte.b

Im just an uneducated old boilermaaker ,on the other hand you must be a scientist, so why dont you explain the difference

A theory is an unproven statement of claim or 'fact'. An hypothesis is an unproven answer to the theoretical question that seeks to prove the theory correct or not...

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by monte.b

This global warming ,ie climate change cause it stopped warming science is just a theory just like god ,and we came from the apes ,they cant prove it 100% ,but different people believe different things .It seems to me however that if in fact the world is creating this climate change thing ,the countries that are the great polluters need to clean their act up first ,lets face it compared to china and india we pollute stuff all so why do our industries have to suffer with that stupid carbon tax ,not that we have many industries left really and its getting less every day

Actually it's 110% proven that we came from great apes. Sorry I can't help myself when I read this about evolution this is a great misconception which happens all the time (that it's only a theory and not proven) it's not a subject of debate it's settled and you can prove it to yourself with 5 minutes of education. We did evolve from apes. The only people who won't accept this are in denial. Evolution is indisputable 100% established fact, to the point Christianity has been forced to reluctantly accept it, hopefully that means they've discarded the notion of a young earth as well however I don't keep up with all the new testaments/revisions tailored to the current perceptions/morality that society holds.

As it is also that the earth is 4.5 billion the universe 13.8 billion etc.

Of course a lot people don't believe in evolution (an incredibly large group of americans for one) but many also don't believe in a round earth or equal rights either so it's not like it should be surprising or anything.

As for climate change/global warming/localized weather not being correlated LOL. That's not really possible given the laws of thermodynamics. You can't have cause without effect. For example lets say the climate increases 2 degrees globally this isn't where it ends, this has many effects and one of the many effects is the land temps increase and create a greater variance in run off between land/sea temps causing the effect of gale force winds. I'll admit that's a bad example because with global warming the variance probably wouldn't become greater if at all, the median/avg temp is what will shift, but I hope you see how cause and effect works. You can't just magically increase the global temps 2 degrees and have all the other forces of nature remain static, it will start an infinite chain reaction they've predicted a mere 2 degree global shift in climate would wipe out a majority of todays species..

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by monte.b

Im just an uneducated old boilermaaker ,on the other hand you must be a scientist, so why dont you explain the difference

A theory in the context of science is basically fact with room for paranoia.

Like with the Big bang, you could say it's a theory the falcon is built by ford in broadmeadows. All observable evidence says they do build falcons in broadmeadows but I've never actually seen them being built inside the factory myself and they won't let me inside to verify it's true. The only observable facts I have are as follows.

1. I see parts going into a building and new falcons roll out.
2. I see them all parked on the grass outside in fleets.
3. I see photo's/videos of inside the factory/assembly line.
4. I see a lot of talk on production from reputable media sources.
5. I hear workers ranting about the current situation/conditions.

So either it's true and they're manufactured here or it's a grand conspiracy but the problem is I can't tell!! The problem is I have no evidence apparently of any single transitional falcon!! Oh no it's only a theory now!! Evidence for a transitional falcon is apparently when I go to a wrecker, buy an xr6 badge, put it on the table, turn the light off, leave the room and come back later the badge should have magically morphed into a brand new FG XR6. but this hasn't happened yet so I can't prove my theory Lol and don't even get started on additions of micro steps explaining one macro step. That's like saying an addition of parts could build like an entire car or something

[cheap]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Actually it's 110% proven that we came from great apes. Sorry I can't help myself when I read this about evolution this is a great misconception which happens all the time (that it's only a theory and not proven) it's not a subject of debate it's settled and you can prove it to yourself with 5 minutes of education. We did evolve from apes. The only people who won't accept this are in denial. Evolution is indisputable 100% established fact, to the point Christianity has been forced to reluctantly accept it, hopefully that means they've discarded the notion of a young earth as well however I don't keep up with all the new testaments/revisions tailored to the current perceptions/morality that society holds.

As it is also that the earth is 4.5 billion the universe 13.8 billion etc.

Of course a lot people don't believe in evolution (an incredibly large group of americans for one) but many also don't believe in a round earth or equal rights either so it's not like it should be surprising or anything.

As for climate change/global warming/localized weather not being correlated LOL. That's not really possible given the laws of thermodynamics. You can't have cause without effect. For example lets say the climate increases 2 degrees globally this isn't where it ends, this has many effects and one of the many effects is the land temps increase and create a greater variance in run off between land/sea temps causing the effect of gale force winds. I'll admit that's a bad example because with global warming the variance probably wouldn't become greater if at all, the median/avg temp is what will shift, but I hope you see how cause and effect works. You can't just magically increase the global temps 2 degrees and have all the other forces of nature remain static, it will start an infinite chain reaction they've predicted a mere 2 degree global shift in climate would wipe out a majority of todays species..

So would it be fair to say that the AGW is generally predicated on increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere manifesting into higher global temperatures?

[superyob]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Actually it's 110% proven that we came from great apes. Sorry I can't help myself when I read this about evolution this is a great misconception which happens all the time (that it's only a theory and not proven) it's not a subject of debate it's settled and you can prove it to yourself with 5 minutes of education. We did evolve from apes. The only people who won't accept this are in denial. Evolution is indisputable 100% established fact, to the point Christianity has been forced to reluctantly accept it, hopefully that means they've discarded the notion of a young earth as well however I don't keep up with all the new testaments/revisions tailored to the current perceptions/morality that society holds.

As it is also that the earth is 4.5 billion the universe 13.8 billion etc.

Of course a lot people don't believe in evolution (an incredibly large group of americans for one) but many also don't believe in a round earth or equal rights either so it's not like it should be surprising or anything.

As for climate change/global warming/localized weather not being correlated LOL. That's not really possible given the laws of thermodynamics. You can't have cause without effect. For example lets say the climate increases 2 degrees globally this isn't where it ends, this has many effects and one of the many effects is the land temps increase and create a greater variance in run off between land/sea temps causing the effect of gale force winds. I'll admit that's a bad example because with global warming the variance probably wouldn't become greater if at all, the median/avg temp is what will shift, but I hope you see how cause and effect works. You can't just magically increase the global temps 2 degrees and have all the other forces of nature remain static, it will start an infinite chain reaction they've predicted a mere 2 degree global shift in climate would wipe out a majority of todays species..

So, in summary, apes are responsible for global warming!

[Davehoos]

Originally Posted by chamb0

Cool, who said this and have you got a link to the conversation?

Wont put money on it but would be close related to this. I would not expect that ABC would chop up an interview and voice over the local presenter.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...policy/5295652

there is also many interviews this month on ABC as the 3rd climate report was released.

I was listening this month to ABC regional-mid north coast because I was in the upper Myall area. the radio announcer put it on the interviewed that the weather hadn't change in living memory and he made the scientific easy to understand reply and very good explanation.

P/S my mates been made redundant after 20 years of living on grants. taking the year off.

[CoupeKing]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26485048

[cheap]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26485048

What a surprise, more doom, gloom and kaboom.

Remind me, weren't people from the University of East Anglia involved in fudging climate data?

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

What a surprise, more doom, gloom and kaboom.

Remind me, weren't people from the University of East Anglia involved in fudging climate data?

Where is the doom, gloom and kaboom?

If you look at the abstract of the paper, this is what the scientists have to say:

We estimate that, before 2012, emissions of all four compounds combined amounted to more than 74,000 tonnes. This is small compared with peak emissions of other CFCs in the 1980s of more than one million tonnes each year2. However, the reported emissions are clearly contrary to the intentions behind the Montreal Protocol, and raise questions about the sources of these gases.

That doesn't sound alarmist to me, it sounds perfectly reasonable.

[GK]

Originally Posted by chamb0

Let's stick with physical science, as enlightening or limiting as it may be.

The "belief" in the effect of greenhouse gases is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of measuring observations.

Can the sun or volcanoes account for the changes being observed? These factors have been been measured and reported.

Here's some links to the Skeptical Science site that explains the science behind this, in understandable english. You can select more advanced levels if you prefer. There's also links to the published research so you can get it from the horse's mouth and avoid wading through any media spin.

Is it the sun? Independent studies measuring solar activity have found that the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over recent decades - while at the same time global temperatures have been rising. Scientists have concluded that changes in the sun's output cannot be the cause.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...ming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acri...ing-hotter.htm



How about volcanoes? Humans release about 100 times more CO2. Volcanoes usually release a minimum-maximum range of 65-319 million tonnes per year. Burning fossil fuels and land use change releases around 30 billion tonnes per year. If that's hard to believe then you can read their research methodology and see if you can find fault.

They report that very large, sporadic eruptions can influence climate through the release of aerosols, however very little of the warming over the last 40 years can be explained by this process.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm

Clever man. I'll play.

Let's say I looked at the links you posted (I didn't and won't) and now believe what you do.

Answer me this.

Did you believe the dire predictions by Tim Flannery of a few years ago when he predicted (with much MSM hype) that Melbourne and Adelaide would have no water within two years? He was the anointed High Priest of AGW in this country and had 99% of scientists on his side. He couldn't even be half right about that!

Did you believe him when he was interviewed and told the Australian people that our (Aussie) emissions targets were vital but may lower the world temperature by a tenth of a degree in a thousand years? This though they would cost us billions and billions?

Did you believe the "J Curve" that was dramatically portrayed in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? The same curve that's been discredited (and the video) and not even allowed to be shown in some U.S schools due to the fabrications in it?

Did you believe the president of the Czech Republic when he said in a radio interview a few years ago that they (Czech Republic) do not in any way believe that AGW is true, but rather all about income distribution? When asked why he believed that he replied "we have lived under the propaganda of communism for a long time and recognise propaganda when we see it."

Do you believe the NASA astronauts and personnel (there were a lot) who signed a petition to free NASA from bogus science surrounding claims of AGW? BTW, the formula/modelling used to calculate AGW by NASA has come under heavy fire of late for being wildly inaccurate and pessimistic, from both inside NASA and out.

Were you watching when the climate scientists from NSW and elsewhere were trapped in the ice and had to be rescued? Why were they in Antarctica you ask? To prove just how much ice has melted and how quick the world is heating up. The fact that they were trapped in more ice than has been there for ages seemed to be lost on the MSM. Also I hasten to add, that the MSM didn't spend much time telling us exactly who was trapped and why they were there!

Am I a skeptic? I sure am.

Do I think this (AGW) is gross fear mongering in order to instil fear into the public? I do. Do I think that it's a good scam to pilfer more taxes, needed by increasingly greedy and cash strapped governments? Yep!

GK

[BHDOGS]

Lmao yeh tony abbots gonna ditch the carbon tax then tax buisness for his paid parental leave hypocritical calls to cut a tax you don't agree with is pointless I don't like paying extra but I have to suck it up and move on you should to

[cheap]

Originally Posted by karj

Where is the doom, gloom and kaboom?

If you look at the abstract of the paper, this is what the scientists have to say:

That doesn't sound alarmist to me, it sounds perfectly reasonable.

So recap the tone and phrases used, mysterious new man-made, worries over the growing, as yet unidentified sources, Grim discovery (misused by co-incidence?), accumulating at significant rates, is very worrying as they will contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, we don't know...

Not a whiff of alarmism? Are you reading the same page?

Then there is one sentence which provides a little balance. Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don't present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

So recap the tone and phrases used, mysterious new man-made, worries over the growing, as yet unidentified sources, Grim discovery (misused by co-incidence?), accumulating at significant rates, is very worrying as they will contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, we don't know...

Not a whiff of alarmism? Are you reading the same page?

Then there is one sentence which provides a little balance. Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don't present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

No I'm not reading the same page... I'm actually reading the abstract of the paper as published in Nature Geoscience (I don't have access to the full paper yet).

This is your problem cheap; you rely on the media, journalists and bloggers for the relay of scientific information and you aren't prepared to go to the appropriate places to get information free from bias or spin.

[Professor Farnsworth]

this thread was tentative at best from the start - not particularly suited to a car forum, especially when things turn political and people start racially profiling.

closed.