It was all over ABC news yesterday that Australia’s magnificent Great Barrier Reef is in “real danger of disappearing in 20 years”
The journalist, Elizabeth Jackson, was extrapolating from a new United Nation’s 23-page summary of a report on climate change.
This is the second summary report from the United Nation’s this year with the first summary report released in Paris on the 2nd February (blog post and comment on first report here).
The new summary report doesn’t say the reef will disappear at all, but it does paint a bleak picture. There only appears to be one reference to the Great Barrier Reef and the text reads:
“Significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur by 2020 in some ecologically-rich sites including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics. Other sites at risk include Kakadu wetlands, south-west Australia, sub-Antarctic islands and the alpine areas of both countries.”
There is also comment more generally about reefs including:
“Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation by corals. [emphasis added]
“Mangroves and coral reefs are projected to be further degraded, with additional consequences for fisheries and tourism.
“For example, current stresses on some coral reefs include marine pollution and chemical runoff from agriculture as well as increases in water temperature and ocean acidification.
“As a consequence of intense tropical cyclone activity: damage to coral reefs.” [end of quotes]
I’m still not convinced destructive fishing practices and pollution aren’t a greater risk to the world’s reefs than climate change as detailed in my controversial opinion piece written for The Australian some months ago.
The new summary sets out all the key policy-relevant findings of the Fourth Assessment of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Assessment is of, “current scientific understanding of impacts of climate change on natural, managed and human systems, the capacity of these systems to adapt and their vulnerability. It builds upon past IPCC assessments and incorporates new knowledge gained since the Third Assessment”.
While much of the report is about what ‘could’ happen to the environment given global warming. It is interesting to note what is included in the section on current knowledge about observed impacts of climate change on the natural environment:
“With regard to changes in snow, ice and frozen ground (including permafrost), there is high confidence that natural systems are affected. Examples are:
• enlargement and increased numbers of glacial lakes;
• increasing ground instability in permafrost regions, and rock avalanches in mountain regions;
• changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, including those in sea-ice biomes, and also
predators high in the food chain.
Based on growing evidence, there is high confidence that the following types of hydrological systems are being affected around the world:
• increased run-off and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers;
• warming of lakes and rivers in many regions, with effects on thermal structure and water quality.
There is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as:
• earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying;
• poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and animal species.
Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s, there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions towards earlier ‘greening’5 of vegetation in the spring linked to longer thermal growing seasons due to recent warming.
There is high confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine and freshwater biological systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation.
These include:
• shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance in high-latitude ocean;
• increases in algal and zooplankton abundance in high-latitude and high-altitude lakes;
• range changes and earlier migrations of fish in rivers.
The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units [IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment]. However, the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented.” [end of quote]
There is no specific reference to coral reefs in the “observed impacts” section. The comment that there is no evidence of ocean acidification affecting the marine biosphere presumably includes no impact on coral reefs.
In summary the report, like most climate change reports from the United Nations, includes relatively unspectacular observed impacts, is big on all the bad things that could happen, and the Australian media blow this out of all proportion, this time including comment that the Great Barrier Reef could disappear in 20 years.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Just filing this piece from The Times here:
“The warnings issued by the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Brussels yesterday are a collection of worst-case scenarios. The report, approved by 130 governments and endorsed by 2,500 scientists (few of whom probably had any hand in writing it), makes scary reading. It predicts a catastrophic future for millions of humans and other species. Global warning will bring hunger, floods and water shortages. Greenhouse gases will change rainfall patterns, intensify tropical storms, accelerate the melting of Arctic ice and mountain glaciers. Africa faces starvation, coastal cities will be swamped and China will see the rapid advance of the desert.
Some of these dangers may well be real. But many are deliberate exaggerations, as the IPCC’s mandate was to highlight the dangers if global temperatures were to rise by up to 4C (7.2F). That assumption is far from proven. But it is enough for some environmental groups to speak of “an apocalyptic future”, a “nightmare vision” and a “humanitarian catastrophe” …
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1624077.ece
This is just climate change propaganda exercise part II – an unprecedented effort to make climate alarmism newsworthy throughout 2007. Part I was written by 21 scientists, most of whom are climate modellers. Part III will focus on attempts to control the complex, non-linear climate system using a single small factor such as carbon dioxide. The final summary report will be released in November, after sufficient time has elapsed for its contents to be amended, in order to be consistent with the political SPM document.
Pure alarmism where climate models are presented as real data, which they are not.
Exaggerated Armageddonist Ecohype. Yawn!
Pay more tax, accept more restricitive, controlling, Government laws, go back to Stone Age living, and the world will be saved from natural variability, not!
Paul: Man has crawled under a rock before in order to survive. There is nothing new under the sun some say.
I say there are plenty of new mines therefore it can’t be too bad deep down.
The things that make the reef unique will disappear. Isn’t that what is being said?
Climate change sceptics need only look at agricultural output for the real evidence of significant change. Big freeze this weekend in the US on abnormally advanced booting wheat crops (also the case for China’s winter wheat crop ATM) are likley to send CBOT wheat futures into a frenzy this week. But then again you guys know everything … Particularly our UK ‘experts’.
Aaron, if there has been a general decline in agricultural production in recent years, could you cite the data? Could you also cite evidence that such a decline has been due to climate change?
Just referring to an individual weather event at a particular time and place does not tell us anything.
But Aaron, with “Global Warming”, spring big freezes arn’t supposed to happen; or as Luke says, ‘happen less and less frequently.’
However, they are not happening less frequently. You reality skeptics have to get a handle on this.
Sid
No one event can be attributed to, or be a proof there is no, global warming.
Spring freezes can happen.
You claim they are happen not less frequently, how about we just look at the evidence and see what the answers are? A blast from the poles is always a possibility. Just look at Melbourne on Christmas day.
Hey Biggsy! Your lack of respect for global capacity constraints may well leave your resourceless butt in somewhat of a jolly old bind in the not too distant future. Good luck old chap!
Sid – I have previously (archives here) that lower percentile of temperature are indeed changing in many global locations as well as here in Australia. Australian wheat farmers know full well that date of last frost has reduced significantly in the last 50 years. Published papers attest to the above.
This does not mean you will occasionally get abnormnal outbursts as cold Antarctic air suddenly find themselves directed over the continent.
But one event means little. The overall trend is quite evident.
The reaction to the IPCC reports here will either be aggessively condemning or defensive (as usual).
But at the end of the day something has to make a call on risk and what to do – if anything.
Despite which “side” you may take, the latest IPCC release is very interesting psychologically speaking.
I even thought myself cripes – is this real. Lots of the detail is actually real – species are moving location. Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly for example. But sea level overhyped for the short term.
But personally it doesn’t sit well. Let’s assume there’s a fair element of truth in it for a moment – just for discussion.
Most of us simply don’t want to hear it.
Could the reef be under threat in a mere 20 years. I would defend climate change as a long term threat but can’t see 20 years. But am I being objective??
Lots of discussions out there about “climate porn”. This is not a scientific response though. Scientists are starting to “apologise” for the results. Not scientific either.
So psychologically none of us of flesh, blood and emotion are going to react well to this news. Are we really up to being “objective”. It’s either reject as rubbish – a scam – eco-marxists – or become religiously doomsaying.
Simply plugging for a “reasonable’ middle line is not scientific either as a choice. But is not “the middle ground” seen an attempt by many to be “sensible” or “reasonable”. It’s not really – just a choice on comfort.
All of us have much emotional baggage that makes sensible discussion of the report difficult.
Also interesting to see that the IPCC scientists complained again the the “tone” of the report was watered down like the February SPM. Quibbling about detail or a more serious dumbing down??
Bollucks Sid. More warm sunny days = more cloudless frosty nights. I’m a farmer I’d know. No doubt this sort of scientific logic escaped your poor understanding of how the climate engine works, ie nights as well as days! Back to school for you and with more expensive food as punishment.
You deserve a bollucks too Luke. Frosts are occuring in increasing severity and in a wider window throughout the year (ie earlier and later), contrary to your claim. I’ll show you the cashbook and rainfall/frost records to prove it.
Start graphing then Aaron as I’ll call you on this one. Big time.
Collins DA, Della-Marta PM, Plummer N & Trewin BC 2000, Trends in the annual frequencies of extreme temperature events in Australia, Australian Meteorological Magazine, 49, 277-295.
Overnight temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures, resulting in a decrease in the diurnal temperature range (the difference between the daily maximum and minimum temperatures). For areas affected by frosts, Collins et al. (2000) found that the annual number of frost days declined by an average of 5.6 from 1957 to 1996 and the average length of the frost season shortened by around 40 days.
From: http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/atmosphere/atmosphere02-5.html
Well Aaron, I’m a farmer too, and over the years have grown wheat and other frost sensitive crops, (eg. maize). In our district, the old adage still stands; ‘don’t sow wheat, (excl. winter wheat to be grazed), before 25th May, and don’t sow maize before 30 Sept.’ Even then there is always the risk of an early or late frost; such are the risks of farming.
We have always recorded rainfall and temp. in detail, as has our family on various station properties since 1872. Earlier records going back to 1840, having been lost in a bushfire, in Dec. 1944.
In drought times with clear skies, daytime temps. are usually higher than normal, and night time temps. can be lower than normal. However this depends on whether cold air from the south or warm air from the north is in play, as well as a lot of other weather and climate factors. Many of which we don’t yet fully understand.
Further, we can have mild winters to severe winters; and cool summers to extremely fierce summers; all within the norm.
However, in Fantasyland, where dwelleth all the AGW believers, on their carbon fixes, such reality doesn’t exist.
Luke how could a man of your intelligence (just ask you eh?) not understand that the incidence of frost and severity increases as mean daily temps increase? I am gobsmacked. Have you ever left the city? Ever grown a plant you can eat … in your life?
Sid watch the opening of the eCBOT on Tuesday morning … Warmer winters are a freeze trap for northern hemisphere crops and this time the US wheat crop may well have suffered one of the biggest sucker punches of all time. Down to minus 10 on Saturday night from ND down to Nebraska and damaging sub zero temps into as far south as Texas. Hey Sid lets give your intelligence a test on another angle being an all knowing farmer. How do you propose broadacre farmers deal with rising oil prices (just forgetting AGW for a minute)? This will be interesting because if AGW is a hoax (as you claim) then rising oil prices will force the same hand in (forced) energy rationing. Either way Sid your practises will have to change in the same direction -> less emissions …
Just a few cotton crops actually – but I guess you don’t eat it – well you do in terms of margarine
– oh well Aaron like Sid – you guys don’t analyse data or look at trends – you deal in anecdotes and opinion – reality is that the studies – as opposed to pulling numbers out of your bum show a decrease in numbers of frosts and frost season. Well who knows about boutique SW WA (and who cares 🙂 )
If you’re like Sid you’ll pick low hanging cherries and ignore the tree.
I await your analysis – if it’s like Sid’s percentile analysis I doubt we’ll ever see it.
(Like Sid your next comment will be I’d have time to waste on crap that I know I know).
I know 🙂
erratum
” I don’t have time”
Methinks the alarmist crowd have gone just a bit too far, and are losing credibilty with a lot of people.
It still has a distinctly EuroSpiv flavour and is being used by sundry political opportunists as a band wagon they can jump on that creates a point of distinction between them and their protagonists.
Pity about all the examples of where the current climate/measurements are not behaving according to their alarmist theories.
An interesting climate science vidio, ‘Climate Change Doomsday Called Off!’,
Also from same web, an account of the real source of the ‘heart wrenching’ photos of polar bears ‘stranded’ on a melting ice flow. This was used and misrepresented by Gore in his movie.
The photo was not taken by green extremists in the middle of the arctic winter. In fact it was taken in August, high summer, when arctic ice is melting, regardless of AGW.
This photo was taken by Australian Marine Biologist, Amanda Berg, two and a half years before it was used by Gore, and fundamentalist green groups like WF. Amanda Berg said that the chunk of ice was very close to land; the bears were not in any distress, and in fact were frollicking about at the time. She said that the picture had nothing to do with GW, and if she had published it, she would have probably captioned it ‘A Striking Photograph’, nothing more.
…..watch?v=WKAC4KfHruQ
So much for truth and ethics, AGW Believer style.
Aaron, broadacre farmers will have to devote about 5% of their acres to producing oilseeds in order to replace fossil fuel use if it becomes too expensive. Don’t worry, I think they’ll be fine.
In the case of cotton, there is more oil in the seed than I use growing the crop. Net surplus may even cover increased fertiliser costs.
Aaron, The temps. in that area are about right. My sister and her husband, Tom, farm at Dakota Dunes, SD, just over the border with Iowa, about 15 mins.from Sioux City.
The temp. there Sat. night was 15 deg.F, and not much more Sun. night.
When I suggested to Tom that the claim was that such a spring freeze was caused by GW, he laughed, and said something not very nice.
(Tom was stranded at Denver International Airport for two days, just before Christmas, on his way to Australia, by a blizzard that broke alltime snow fall & record low Dec. temp records for Denver.
Last post from me …
Luke you really have too much time on your hands. World’s most prolific blog poster is not an accolade I’d be overly proud of …
Sid nobody suggested the freeze was caused by GW silly boy. The damage has come from crops that are more advanced than normal because mean daily temps have been higher this season. Same for European, Chinese and Indian crops. You never answered the question …
Aaron – I’ll take the ad hom as a backdown by you. Aren’t facts annoying.
It’s people like this who unfortunately, at least partially validate Paul Bigggs’ theory…
werenhttp://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/06/1175366470599.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
It’s why I get so nervous about the AGW side on occassions.
GWs have had some success in peddling fear, seems like you cant get thru the checkout without being assailed by a ship load of lip-glossed magazines with various overpaid overmade underemployed celebs activating over the need for a global change – to something, to everything, whatever.
But this garish lineup of surgically enhanced media airheads is not convincing the more savvy of kids;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=673_1175751230
Jim,
the Age is suffering from a terminal case of old timers disease and the Silly Moaning Herald is not far behind – Fairfax have done their demographics and must think that their market is the doctors wives of 2 inner city high rise blocks.
As for this Ted Trainer joker….fits right in nicely
And this Elizabeth Jackson was supposed to have been a barrister but after the dogs breakfast she made of Media Watch…just too embarrasing to watch, should make a good candidate for the ALP.
The sooner we kick Howard and his war-mongering liars out out, shut down the coal industray and bring in a carbon tax the better.
Doomsday called off?
“Polar icecaps and glaciers will begin to melt”?
Goodness, gracious, they already are melting, we don’t have to wait for it to begin. Can’t they even get something that simple right.
And the earth has been warmer before, but not with this ecology. The change, in ecological terms, will be extremely rapid, with many species suffering extinction, and we humans having to face massive change. And if the past is anything to go by, we won’t cope with it at all well. Anyone want a couple of million Bangladeshi refugees?
“The deserts will expand”? The deserts are expanding, Spain, say hello to the Sahara.
Can’t they even acknowledge the simple facts of what is happening now?
The Mercury April 7, 2007
“GETTING IT STRAIGHT
In an article on page one of the Mercury on Saturday , Martch31, it was reported that, with a pulp mill operating in Tasmania, a log truck would travel down Macquarie St every eight minutes between 6am and 6pm.
This statement was false.
This figure did not appear in any report by GHD to the Resource Planning and Development Commission.
The calculation was made by the Mercury based on figures on truck movements in Hobart’s Macquarie St that have been shown to be wrong.
In fact, there will be no extra log truck movements in Hobart because of the pulp mill.
The Mercury regrets the error.”
For those that did not see the 31 March edition, the Front page was taken by this story now revealed to be based on figures now shown to be wrong. There was a very large photo of a log truck, a Editorial cartoon, a street talk column and the front page article continued on page 2.
The correction was a 10 cm one column space on page 4.
Will we see the National Broadcaster follow the Mercury’s lead and correct their story?
However the Mercury may have followed the same trap of the ABC on Climate change:
In an article “Call for coastal action” on April 08, 2007 The Sunday Tasmanian stated
“A PUSH has begun to stop people building on the one fifth of Tasmania’s coastline that is at risk of a six-metre sea level rise this century. Top climate change experts have predicted 711,000 homes and businesses on Australia’s coast could be affected should the worst predictions be realised”
Yet, Table SPM-2 of the Summary for Policymakers IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report shows only a modeled sea level rise for the next century of 0.18 –0.59 metres.
Should the media have some sort of responsibility for accurate reporting?
Jennifer,
I read somewhere, possibly here, that you are an etymologist. If so how can you honestly write off the following as “relatively unspectacular observed impacts”:
• earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying;
• poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and animal species.
Surely you would understand that entire ecosystems and, the food-chains upon which they depend, rely on consistent spring timings? And that if you mess up one link in a food-chain, this weakens the rest, possibly causing collapse?
The reason why this is not a good thing, imho, is that a food-chain is a huge carbon sink. Less co2 being sunk – means more c02 in the atmosphere – which is where the problem starts in the first place.
““Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation by corals. [emphasis added]”
Given that the current rise is quick in ecological terms, then their assumption is probably correct. Fish and coral are mostly cold-blooded, and a reef can’t move quickly.
“Detailed analyses of fish physiological response to water temperature have shown that the potential impact of climate change on freshwater and marine fish is large (Wood and McDonald, 1997). Unfortunately, current knowledge appears to be limited mostly to single key species, abstracted from the wider ecosystem context that supports fisheries production. It is likely that extrapolation from biological first principles will provide only limited foresight at a fisheries level in that context. However, it is likely that in the short term, fish will move to new habitats to find conditions to which they have adapted.”
(from the IPCC TAR).
That would be a large part of the reason the reef is under threat. It takes a long time to build one up, and the temperature rise means there won’t be a long time.
Sorry – I did not mean etymologist – LOL – I did mean entomologist.
Aaron, Sid, Luke etc. frost events may well become a greater problem, even if there are less of them.
“CO2 enrichment predisposes foliage of a eucalypt to freezing injury and reduces spring growth
Seedlings of Eucalyptus pauciflora, were grown in open-top chambers fumigated with ambient and elevated [CO2], and were divided into two populations using 10% light transmittance screens. The aim was to separate the effects of timing of light interception, temperature and [CO2] on plant growth. The orientation of the screens exposed plants to a similar total irradiance, but incident during either cold mornings (east-facing) or warm afternoons (west-facing). Following the first autumn freezing event elevated CO2-grown plants had 10 times more necrotic leaf area than ambient CO2 plants. West-facing plants had significantly greater (25% more) leaf damage and lower photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) in comparison with east-facing plants. Following a late spring freezing event east-facing elevated CO2 plants suffered a greater sustained loss in Fv/Fm than west-facing elevated CO2- and ambient CO2-grown plants. Stomatal conductance was lower under elevated CO2 than ambient CO2 except during late spring, with the highest leaf temperatures occurring in west-facing plants under elevated CO2. These higher leaf temperatures apparently interfered with cold acclimation thereby enhancing frost damage and reducing the ability to take advantage of optimal growing conditions under elevated CO2.”
In a seminar I saw by one of the authors, a slide of results from other papers showed reduced frost tolerance under higher [CO2] is common to many plants, including a number of agriculturally important ones.
Reading all of this stuff I wonder if anyone believes in evolution anymore? Changing a couple of things in an ecosystem generally doesn’t destroy it, just modify it, or that’s the theory, and there’s plenty of historical evidence around to suggest a high degree of accuracy in the theory. And disruption is frequently beneficial as it opens opportunities for new and potentially better ways of doing things.
There seems to be a dangerous asymmetry in human information systems where we promote reporting of risk over reporting of opportunity.
Not a good line Graham, as previous major climate shifts have caused the extinction of half the species on Earth. Which might be beneficial unless you’re being selected against.
Nexus – what CO2 levels are you talking about?
On frost there has also been work to show date of last frost and number of frosts interacts with El Nino-Southern Oscillation. Perhaps even using SOI as a decision support tool in wheat variety selection for planting.
Journal of Climate Volume 9, Issue 8 (August 1996)
pp. 1896–1909
Frost in Northeast Australia: Trends and Influences of Phases of the Southern Oscillation
Roger Stonea, Neville Nicholls b, and Graeme Hammer a
a. Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit, QDPI/CSIRO, Toowoomba, Australia
b. Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Roger Stone
Neville Nicholls
Graeme Hammer
ABSTRACT
A forecast method capable of estimating date of last frost and number of frosts per season in northeastern Australia some months in advance is described. Forecast “skill” is achieved using either Southern Oscillation index (SOI) patterns (phases) during the previous austral autumn or a linear discriminant approach and the SOI. When applying these systems, it is possible to provide significantly different probability distributions of day of last frost and number of frosts, depending on the SOI patterns observed during the previous season. An analysis of the time series of frost frequency and date of last frost suggests an apparent warming trend in the data, resulting in a trend toward earlier dates of last frost and fewer numbers of frosts at many of the locations analyzed. The beneficial implications of the proposed frost forecasting system for enterprises such as winter agriculture in the region are believed to be significant.
“Reading all of this stuff I wonder if anyone believes in evolution anymore? Changing a couple of things in an ecosystem generally doesn’t destroy it, just modify it, or that’s the theory, and there’s plenty of historical evidence around to suggest a high degree of accuracy in the theory. And disruption is frequently beneficial as it opens opportunities for new and potentially better ways of doing things.”
Graham, are you serious??
never mind the fact that barring a meteorite, the rate of climate change occurring now is already happening faster than any recorded fluctuations previously, faster than the ability of ecosystems to adapt to the change… let alone the fact that we have broken up and changed large tracts of the earth natural surface for agriculture etc to further limit the ability of the flora and fauna to move with the changing temperature bands. sure, there WILL be adaptation, but just how many species (ourselves included, long term) go by the wayside in the process?
seriously, this is barely more than primary school level science.
Graham
I believe in evolution, and it’s limitations. Mass extinctions previously indicate there is a finite ability of many species to adapt to rapid change.
Some curious comments post IPCC Climate Change 2007 V2
Jennifer: “Some of these dangers may well be real. But many are deliberate exaggerations, as the IPCC’s mandate was to highlight the dangers if global temperatures were to rise by up to 4C (7.2F)”. Worst case assessment is just good engineering Jennifer.
Luke, also above: “Most of us simply don’t want to hear it”. “But sea level overhyped for the short term” Hey I reckoned a while back Luke had beachfront property in QLD!
Graham Young: “I wonder if anyone believes in evolution anymore? None of us have camouflage or color change ability like a squid hiding in sea grass Graham
Online Opinion – Skeptics Anonymous “All seems a bit hard….maybe I’ll wait and see if its really within our control first”. God help us when it’s too late!
Best of all was Professor Tony McMichael, Director, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health ANU speaking on ABC 666 today about the increased threat of asthma in a hotter wetter atmosphere. The ACT is fast becoming the driest place on earth!
Like the Darling the Murrumbidgee is about to dry up, however a local micro biologist is ramping up the barriers to sewage recycling. Human health is suddenly an issue around the Capital despite our distance from the sea.
In the struggle for relevance cop out strategies are a dime a dozen. V3 its seems will need to focus on humans, not the environment
Seems like reality is catching up with sceptics in the USA – this from todays Australian
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21528007-30417,00.html?from=public_rss
Can’t be long now before the IPA gets on board as well!
Disgraceful – we’ll have to loan them our Aussie and NZ contrarians to give them a run for it. Where are the standards of denialism getting to. What’s Louis doing about this?
Agreed Gavin, don’t ever forget Murphy’s Law.
Well, well, well, it appears that every body is just about crapped out of there ubiquitous “Y” fronts…
So it’s, 2007, a this is the latest IPCC report….
So how many IPCC reports have there been…….
Seek & yea may find……
That’s of course if they haven’t been taken of the site already, that is…….
And what if the mathematics used has already been, contested by men with degree’s [tertiary]and that the alogrythm used, proved to be flawed……
What then of all this hysteria & historonic’s….
What then indeed my fellow travellers……
Now I’m suggesting that there isn’t ‘climate warming/change ‘……..depends which side of the fence you are standing on…..whereas me, myself and I, have a wry smile on the dial, you see I’ve done my homework, and remember, those who fail to prepare…….prepare to fail…!!!
What I am suggesting is that, the further one deconstruct’s the past…..to find the point of origin……then the further one can see……into the future…!!!
And after saying that little bit of an adage, I suppose you all think that I’m some kind of crazy….
So let me defend myself, by merely saying that…..” insanity is a sane response to world that has gone insane ”
Hoo-Roo 4 now,
Hungappa
p.s.just how many of these comments come from people who don’t own a car, who turn there electrical switches off at the wall, how many cook their own food from scratch,how many read labels on the packaging/processed food they consumer, how many are into buying and preserving food for later use, and no I don’t mean jams/spreads, how many use their shanks- pony too get around, and when all else fails they use public transport, mind you, it would be my considered opinion that it wouldn’t be too many at all, you see I’ve already made the necessary adjustments to my life and have bee doing all of the above for at least 14 years, but then not including all of the years when I was a little tacker, saving my money earn’t from recycling newspapers/bottle/dead marines’, etc,etc, etc…
Hunga says “Seek & ye may find……” I for one z been there done that matey, alternative stuff like lived in tents on the Gold Coast, kids fishing for creek flathead after dark, bucket bath on the hobby farm in Tas, wood splitting after school, milk run before breakfast and so on. Even sold the car to live, then it was a taste of life in Kings Cross.
On reflection, the only hard thing apart from sleeping the ground for months on end is butchering.
For a time canvassing alternative communities for clues on grass roots survival skills became a lifestyle in itself. There are many personal stories……….. Meeting world travelers who lived on a shoestring for much of their lives has taught me this about survival; it’s the quick and the dead at every level of our western society. Getting your share and keeping it while essential is an art.
Banks and other lending institutions do it all so well in a downturn.
One acquaintance from the low impact living colonies tipped me off about a recluse like family building their new homestead underground. What I saw was to the greater part directly the result of various research projects in academia, all based in the USA. Quarrying for lifestyle is another art. We dug the earth long before we flew above it.
IMO The flying lifestyle for humans is a bit of an aberration
I really wonder if there are going to be bussiness opportunities with climate change…specially in the long run.
So finally somebody is selling tickets for hell?
The water tank business in Australia is booming.
Frost events, Nexus, ? The problem for AGW believers and Reality Deniers, is that there are NOT less of them!
Nor are killing frosts ending sooner and starting later, as Luke and his climate waffler sites would have us believe. That is, in the real world, not the virtual world.
So you’ve actually done the frost analyses and refute the numbers that have been done. Brave stuff Sid.
Tells me too that you’re impervious to ANY data that you haven’t decided a priori you’ll accept. So therefore you’re pretty much a waste of space for an objective discussion.
Sid lots of Queensland farmers far from AGW devotees will tell you frost frequencies have changed markedly. I know too – I used to walk through the stuff as a kid – white everywhere. Decades since I’ve seen stuff like that. i.e. it’s frigging obvious !
Well, Luke, frost frequencies change from year to year, as do all climate and weather events.
Our elevation here is from 1620 ft. to 2200ft. And for example, in winter of 2000 we had 41 days of killing frosts in a row. (And 2″ of settled snow in July, at the house, with 5″ on the higher country.) This was followed by two somewhat milder winters, and during the spring of the latter, the London Plane trees were budding about 2 weeks earlier then usual, at end of Sept., when an Oct. killing frost hit them. Since then they have not commenced to bud until mid Oct. Here frost free days probably increased by five from 1930 to 1945; decreased by about three days antil the 1970’s; increased by about the same until about mid 1990’s, and have decreased by about a day since then.
I don’t refute the frost analyses data you mention, however I do hold it suspect, because a lot of these research projects have been funded to prove AGW.