Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031
Results 301 to 310 of 310

Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    955
    Quote Originally Posted by Eevo View Post
    so the carbon tax should apply to breathing.
    And death as tax evasion Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.
    Cheers
    Tombie

    Gone - D1 AZZKIKR - 5.0L Supercharged with the lot
    Gone - Tombraider Defender - Lara
    Gone - D2 TD5

    D4 MY11
    - Just about the way I want it.
    D90 MY15 - Just about the way Mrs Tombie wants it.
    Cancelled the new order...

    And for those fun times:
    2007 Suzuki M109R Boulevard Limited - 1800cc of V-twin goodness
    2020 Suzuki Katana - 1000cc of pure mayhem - Just Send It

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Hills
    Posts
    10,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    And death as tax evasion Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.
    sounds about right.
    Quote Originally Posted by DazzaTD5 View Post
    Its a land Rover Defender... you need a real mechanic

  3. #303
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    Because it’s not. That’s what they’ve been struggling with.
    Yeah .... nah:

    How reliable are climate models?
    Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)
    Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.Mainstream climate models have also accurately projected global surface temperature changes. Climate contrarians have not.
    Arapiles
    2014 D4 HSE

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Arapiles View Post
    How hard is it to understand that the evidence backs up the models?
    So what you're saying is that when NASA measures the Antarctic ice sheet and sees that in 2014 and 2015 that it's the largest it's been since 1970(basically since satellite imagery began) .. that it conformed to the predicted model of melting ice and rising sea.

    Read the data before you make claims.
    They say it on their own website .. they assumed that the sea level rise was X amount, then discovered that Antarctic ice was actually taking negating some of that rise, so got they prediction wrong!
    The Arctic ice melting was adding more to the sea level rise than they initially thought.

    NASA are the climate scientists that admit they're getting it wrong.(I posted this info many replies ago in quoted text from their site)

    In a world of increasing warmth, Antarctic ice coverage increased!
    Went completely against their predicted models.

    How on Earth is that "backing up predicted models"?

    I'm not telling you this, I'm not predicting this .. it's on NASAs website NASA is telling us this! very easy to find
    If you do a search for climate science data .. and not climate scientist propaganda hypothesis .. you'll find 'The Convenient Truth'.

    Who's the denialist here?
    I openly admit I'm sceptical of the fame seeking sensationalist climate science.
    But if you don't want to read the data(not the 'science') and you just blindly accept the scientists interpretation of the data .. then the denialist is ... ?

    Therefore, are we all denialists?(does it even matter)

    Science NEEDS an finely tuned and balanced discussion. Needs both for and against commentary and input. If not, it's not science, it's a cult.
    Too many times I hear(mainly radio) where climate sceptics get shut down by the left leaning greenie journalists, that believe that current climate science are the gospels according to <insert favourite greenie here>
    Shutting down comments against your belief system is .. no other way to say it .. fascism. extremism!

    FWIW: I'm a left leaning, donkey voting non believer. I won't take part in a system that's pretty much rigged to elect persons that have nothing but contempt for the people that they're working for. Just to be clear that I'm not a rightwing anti ABC type. It's all I listen too, is ABC info/news.
    But when ABC journalist shut down anyone that calls in, to counter climate discussion and they get shut down ...
    I always thought their job was to give the people a voice.
    Cheers,
    Arthur.

    '99 D1 300 Tdi Auto

  5. #305
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by AK83 View Post
    So what you're saying is that when NASA measures the Antarctic ice sheet and sees that in 2014 and 2015 that it's the largest it's been since 1970(basically since satellite imagery began) .. that it conformed to the predicted model of melting ice and rising sea.

    Read the data before you make claims.
    They say it on their own website .. they assumed that the sea level rise was X amount, then discovered that Antarctic ice was actually taking negating some of that rise, so got they prediction wrong!
    The Arctic ice melting was adding more to the sea level rise than they initially thought.

    NASA are the climate scientists that admit they're getting it wrong.(I posted this info many replies ago in quoted text from their site)

    In a world of increasing warmth, Antarctic ice coverage increased!
    Went completely against their predicted models.

    ..... How on Earth is that "backing up predicted models"?.

    I'm really not sure where you're getting your ideas from. It's been well documented that the Antarctic ice shelves are melting underneath and there's fears that they will entirely collapse:

    From NASA:

    Ice Sheets | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
    Ice Sheets

    Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
    Please note that the most recent data are from June 2017, when the GRACE mission concluded science operations. New data from GRACE’s successor mission, GRACE Follow-On, will be displayed when it becomes available.​

    Arapiles
    2014 D4 HSE

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,578
    if it's from NASA .. you can pretty much be sure that I've probably read it .. if not, I will irrespective of posting a link or not.
    (yeah, I'm geeky like that)

    But .. for clarity's sake:

    Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

    Where does it say they are sure that they got it right without a shadow of a doubt?

    Also what they don't say(that is the data is there, but no one explains it). From 1980 to 1995(approx) .. the Antarctic ice shrank .. just like the Arctic and Greenland.
    back then they expected it to shrink.. the prediction was less Antarctic ice sheet. But it steadily increased from 1995-ish .. more like 2005 and continued growing till max in about 2014-2015.

    The prediction (early on) as it lost mass, was it'll lose more mass, but it gained .. totally against the prediction.
    Tell me how they got the 'predicted model' right, when it turned out to go against their modelling.

    Oh! That's right .. not every part of the planet will conform to the overall trend.

    B ... S of the highest magnitude!

    It is thus not a big surprise that sea ice extent is increasing slightly in the Antarctic. There are cycles in the climate system. ...
    This is a quote from their Q&A page .. link in the link I posted.

    Same old BS excuse.
    They forget that their earlier prediction was that it was warming and will continue to warm and lose ice .. and it turned out that they were WRONG. Their earlier prediction was incorrect. Simple as that.
    Why the lame excuses?

    What ... are we stupid to forget their earlier predictions

    And, like I wrote in an earlier reply.
    When the World Meterolgical Organisation removed historically recorded DATA! 90 year after it's recording, claiming that it was incorrect .. something smells of a distinctly effluent aroma here.
    They realised in 2012 that a record on the temp in a specific spot was dubiously high .. 90 years later .. at the height of the global warming hysteria? Really!!
    You want me to believe that 90 years after it happened someone fessed up and claimed they got it wrong?

    if this is the actual situation .. then al data recorded pre automated data colelction is null and void and the reality is we have no idea if the globe has warmed at all pre 1970s!!!

    Can't have your cake and eat it .. data is all BS useless waste of space and breath.

    Question is.. what haven't they told us about.

    if data is altered to suit an expected model .. the science of that is garbage.
    Cheers,
    Arthur.

    '99 D1 300 Tdi Auto

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bundeena, NSW, Aust
    Posts
    2,347
    With regard to Antarcticas sea ice:

    About 5 years ago:


    A few months ago:
    Cheers,

    Sean

    MY16 RRS TDV6 3.0 SE Fuji White
    MY10 D4 TDV6 3.0 HSE Baltic Blue - Gone

    “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” - Albert Einstein

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,578
    Oh, and the earlier comment about the increased total rainfall in Australia being isolated to the 'tropics' .. more misinformation from whatever source this idea was taken from.

    Again, unless the BoM has their data collection completely wrong, it's trivial to see areas of Aus where the rainfall totals have come and gone from.

    Most areas are up, some more than others, but basically all higher .. not lower.

    Areas in Aus where total rain has decreased in the recorded period is south western aus. Significant drop too. mid 700s' down to low 600's.
    All other areas are up, so the overall is higher.
    If you assumed that Southwestern Aus = Western Australia .. you'd be wrong. Western Australia increased from 300 to 400 in this period.
    Vic, marginally(mid 600s to lower 600's, and tas .. from a high base of low 1400's to high 1300's

    What constitutes the 'tropics' .. I assume what BoM calls Northern Australia .. up just a little more than the nationwide average. Mid 400's to high 500's
    Murray Darling Basin .. where everyone instantly thinks of drought and plight .. up. Not as much as the national average, but mid 400's to high 400's

    So the drought we're having due to global warming = more rainfall.

    How that makes any sense in a logical manner .. makes zero sense.

    Only logical conclusion a reasonably minded person can come too = BoM scientists have consulted government that Australia total rainfall has increased in time.
    Government sees tax dollars in their eyes, allow wasteful water resource industry to flourish .. probably to assist the myth that we're a country of "droughts and flooding plains" .. or something and to keep the populace in check via scare mongering.

    probably sounding a little too conspiratorial even if I say so myself!

    Anyhow, and seriously if you follow the historical pattern for Murray Darling, where it's diabolically low now(300's), but still not as low as in the distant past(high 200's) ... then the prediction for the next 3 years should be a lot more rainfall, and about or above the historical average.
    So next 3 years for the MDB should be annually about 400-500-ish for a minimum of a 3 year period, usually more, and at least one flood year.
    Cheers,
    Arthur.

    '99 D1 300 Tdi Auto

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    112
    First Dog cuts through with humour as usual...

    We mustn’t bring politics into the disastrous situation that was created by ... wait for it ... POLITICS | First Dog on the Moon | Opinion | The Guardian

    Kinda like AULRO off the topic of Land Rovers - No Politics allowed, except for raving lunatics saying whatever they want to defend their world view, regardless of how it affects others, without mentioning the P word.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    955
    Some interesting comments


    YouTube
    Cheers
    Tombie

    Gone - D1 AZZKIKR - 5.0L Supercharged with the lot
    Gone - Tombraider Defender - Lara
    Gone - D2 TD5

    D4 MY11
    - Just about the way I want it.
    D90 MY15 - Just about the way Mrs Tombie wants it.
    Cancelled the new order...

    And for those fun times:
    2007 Suzuki M109R Boulevard Limited - 1800cc of V-twin goodness
    2020 Suzuki Katana - 1000cc of pure mayhem - Just Send It

Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!