GROWING up in Brisbane thirty years ago I attended People for Nuclear Disarmament rallies and was part of the protest when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was awarded an honorary doctorate. This Saturday I will be returning to Brisbane to be a part of the No Carbon Tax Rally.
Politics is very different now. Some of my old Moreton Island Protection Committee friends have gone on to successful careers within the environment movement where it is now possible to have a well-paid and respectable job for life.
They have become part of the establishment, while the No Carbon Tax Rally will be attended by what the same establishment increasingly and unfairly label “misfits and oddballs”.
It is certainly unfashionable to be a global warming sceptic but that doesn’t make it wrong. Indeed while global warming may now be considered the great moral issue of our time, in another thirty years the current obsession with carbon dioxide may be recognised as misguided.
During the recent protracted drought when Wivenhoe Dam was at 17 per cent capacity and falling, Tim Flannery wrote in New Scientist that because of global warming the dams would never fill again – not even when it rained. I can understand why governments concerned by such advice tried to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
But since, the drought has broken, and the dams have filled – in the case of Wivenhoe to overflowing.
But instead of reassessing the evidence, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, has appointed Professor Flannery, the very man who claimed the drought would last forever, to head up a new Climate Commission.
Reminiscent of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen days, governments are again treating the Australian public as fools. The ideology is still extreme and based on nonsense – just different.
We live in a land of drought or flooding rains and so governments need to take natural climate cycles seriously and to recognise that the bigger our cities, the greater the risk of running out of water or being washed away – unless we plan appropriately.
Banning certain categories of light-bulb, or even introducing a carbon tax, is not going to return the Australian climate to some sort of benevolent natural state.
So I am travelling to Brisbane to be a part of the No Carbon Tax Rally on Saturday.
It is my opportunity to very publically show my concern for current government climate policy.
I would like government to stop treating climate as a slogan and cast around a little wider for advice including by listening to the many well qualified meteorologists, hydrologists and paleoclimatologists whose more accurate forecasts have so far been ignored – because they don’t believe carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change.
The proposed tax will not stop climate change and the way it is currently being formulated it will not even reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
See you at the rally!
***********
Republished from The Courier Mail, May 5, 2011 pg 29
The Rally is this Saturday outside Parliament House, from 11.30am. Parliament House is in the Brisbane CBD at the corner of George and Alice Street. Don’t forget to bring a sign and also your extended families.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer all the best for the rally and I hope there is a big crowd and the weather is kind.
BTW we know you’re a speaker but is there a published list of speakers on saturday?
You go girl!
Best of luck and let’s hope that you get through to people!
If anyone can do it, you can.
Good onya Jen keep fighting the good fight. Dont forget to point out the decrease in ocean temperatures despite them absorbing much of the additional heat and the declining rate of change in sea levels, despite significant increases in co2 that are supposed to cause the opposite.
Good luck Jennifer; this may be of interest and worth mentioning; it seems BoM are still getting it wrong:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931#comment-30879
As one of the comments says, if they can’t get it right 3 months in the future why are they talking about decades and centuries?
another comment I had published today:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/westpac-joins-carbon-revolt/story-fn59niix-1226050289507
Tony Windsor I must say I’ve always been a tad suspicious of sales people. After all a sale is beneficial to the sales person so why should everything they say be believed without question. Where’s the benefit for Australia in taxing man made emissions of carbon dioxide. How can the Government think that taking away Australia’s advantage in cheap fossil fuels be in the national interest. How can costlier energy generate jobs? And what does Oakshott perceive is the public good that will be achieved? Where’s the substantive direct evidence that a measurable amount of the late 20th century warming was caused by human carbon dioxide emissions? Where’s the benefit (to Australia) of ‘going it alone’ before our major trading partners? It is not in the national interest for this Govt to introduce this tax. I know the Govt needs it for its ‘smoke and mirrors’ budget and possibly so as not to lose Greens support but surely the national interest should be the only priority with a Govt of whatever political persuasion.
This proposed tax is not in the national interest
and a great comment at the same link by Ian Wilson of Perth Posted at 10:20 AM Today
This man is really very stupid and scarily wields an extraordinary influence over Australian politics. For your education Mr Windsor, and please read this carefully, as it may stop you from sounding so dumb in future: 1) the climate has always changed, well at least for the last 3,000 million years; 2) Australia contributes c. 1.4% of global human induced CO2 emissions; 3) human induced emissions make up c. 4% of total CO2 emissions; 4) Australiaâs contribution of total CO2 emissions is therefore c. 0.04%; 5) a reduction of even 10% of Australiaâs emissions, which will certainly wreck our economy, will make up just 0.004% of total global CO2 emissions. . Mr Windsor, please tell us how, this will a) reduce global temperatures; and b) please tell us how that for no material change in temperature, but a certain wrecking of the Australian economy, this will cause âno harmâ; lastly c) pray tell us how a tax that does not change behaviour, because it is partly designed to buy votes, will further change a climate that has always changed?
Comment 15 of 20
Thanks for the kind wishes.
Neville,
Other speakers include
A bush poet
Hajnal Ban
Scott Driscoll
Rod McGarvie
Senator Eric Abetz
Jennifer,
You will have more impact with the public and media by pointing out the unsettled science,which is that real doubt in most peoples minds. It will also elevate your demo. as something above just money. Therefore more suggestions for placards…
“Climate Science”
Bullshit !
It’s the Sun Stupid !
” Climate Change”
Yeah right!
So much bullshit and strange bedfellows:
Just think of all those dams that Joh built or was proponent of – let’s see the Burdekin and Fairbairn dams, Wivenhoe, Hinze, Beardmore, Bjelke-Petersen, Eungella dams and the Fred Haigh Dam. These dams now so beloved by rightist sceptics who’d like a few more.
And who can forget the sickening sight of Beattie pushing a geriatric Joh around in his wheel chair. Barf !
“Wrecking the Australian economy” – ah probably not.
“Climate has changed before” yep the Mayans enjoyed it. And so do all the species that kark it.
Sea level isn’t rising – pigs bum !
The sceptics predicted the big wet – pigs bum. You wouldn’t have the current level of IPO and ENSO without Nicholls and Power.
CSIRO didn’t find an AGW influence in the SEQ drought. SEACI has found a highly probable influence on the worst on record Murray drought. All summarily ignored by sceptics.
And I did enjoy Ove’s roast of our sceptic quattro in the delicately titled “The latest from Redneck Wonderland” http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6564
As yes Cohenite – in some respects yes but when old mate Hughes also puts up the skill scoire map (consistency) we can talk. Campbell Newman was on the big wet money, as was the Qld BoM, and SPOTA was on the money since April 2010. Don’t say government was that “surprised”.
Jen can take heart that only 30% support it but needs to also take heed that 78% think AGW is real.
And poor Joh – great bloke if you really didn’t give a shit about old buildings, Fraser Island and freedom of speech. And of course – if you needed directions back in the day to your nearest knock shop you could always ask your local constabulary to direct you. But “don’t you worry about that” – think of all those dams.
Some other Joh thoughts for the rally …. in these pre-Newman administration days –
‘The greatest thing that could happen in Queensland and the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquility’.
Response to a question about possible leaks of government business during his use of a mobile telephone: ‘I always talk in a way they can’t understand!’
‘You don’t tell the frogs anything before you drain the swamp’.
‘Don’t put one foot on the sticky paper because pretty soon you will end up with two feet stuck.’
‘There are more ways of killing a cat than drowning it. Different occasions warrant different methods of annihilating a socialist government’.
‘You can’t sit on a fence, a barbed wire fence at that, and have one ear to the ground.”
The last quote Jen !!
But alas yes Flannery is a twit. A unilateral carbon tax isn’t a good idea. Need a global deal or no deal. You’d be working on Windsor wouldn’t you?
Hajnal Ban
In case anyone wondering (I thought not)
“Hajnal” is dawn in hungarian and “Ban” (pronounced Baan) was a title of a governor in
Croatia, then part of Hungary. Before WWI.
(My wife is Hungarian)
Maybe of interest to you Luke is that old Joh originally was from Palmerston North NZ.
Serves you bloody right.
From Luke’s link:
‘Bob Carter, Dave Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth have not published their scientific propositions (that underpin the 10 putative ‘errors’ Bolt has pointed to) in the peer-reviewed literature. This is crucial if we are to separate fact from opinion.’
Delicious irony! The peer review system has been corrupted.
Luke,
Prof. David Karoly comes across on the telly as a real govt. talking head. He’s like some brain dead voice recording with an AGW script relaying the govt. message with his mouth going up and down like a puppet.
Just insert money and watch him perform.
Luke,
Put a 🙂 after my last comment about old Joh.
I guess old Joh was just one of the original kiwi exodus NZers to head to Australia.
Both my children (daughter named Jennifer!) (Tutor nurse at QE2 hospital South Brisbane) and my son (physiotherapist)crossed the Tasman , my son is still over there.
At least we can agree that Luke (at long last) has got one thing right, the carbon tax is a waste of time and will not change the climate in the slightest.
Of course Timmy the man appointed by Gillard to be the expert to travel around Australia and explain the tax has spilled his guts and said a lot more.
His revelation to Bolt that a complete cessation of carbon use by the whole world today wouldn’t reduce temps for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years must have been a real eye opener to all the assorted numbskulls and halfwits in Canberra.
Remember they’ve been telling us we must tackle CC by reducing our emissions by 5% to help save the planet. Both of these arguments are hopelessly barking mad.
Also it’s a waste of time and money and could easily help to wreck our economy for idiotic reasons.
The first ratio that really exposes their total lack of logic and reason is the fact that we export 3 times the tonnage of coal than we use at home and we are exporting more and more over time.
The next problem is the fact that non OECD countries will be emitting 20 times more co2 than OECD countries for the next 25 years and will double our total by 2035.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in AGW or not, or whether every scientist on earth believes it, the 20 to 1 ratio proves with a certainty of 100% there is zero we can do about it.
These are primary school sums and yet we still have dingbats running around the country lying to the people that we can successfully mitigate CC by means of this idiotic nonsense.
‘The sceptics predicted the big wet – pigs bum. You wouldn’t have the current level of IPO and ENSO without Nicholls and Power.’
I’m fairly sure Franks predicted the big wet a year in advance. Usual stuff, natural variability cycles, negative IPO, more La Nina, excessive floods.
As for Nicholls, let’s not forget his theory on the expanding sub tropical ridge. It was worth a shot but has proven to be wide of the mark.
Twaddle el Gordo (1) IPO isn’t predictable – and where was Franks big web site prediction in Dec 2009 showing Brisbane floods for Xmas 2010? and where is the prediction for Xmas 2011 – so pigs bum !!
This is just a sceptic talking point and such bullshit.
(2) STRi explains why you have persistent Murray droughts – doesn’t say you will have no Las Ninas or that droughts will be forever. Your comments show you have NO understanding of the science. STRi is a standout addition to the knowledge bank.
Luke you really are a dope and very free with the truth.
We sceptics pointed out ad nauseum here and elsewhere that if you get a strong la nina matched with a negative IOD the probability of increased rainfall over SE Australia is much higher. Plus more rainfall further north as well when we get la nina alone.
Of course nobody predicted the strongest la nina since 1917 and that made a lot of difference and allowed a lot of very warm water to occur off north and eastern Australia.
Also I’m sure Franks did predict a wetter period when matched with the above.
Years ago I pointed out here the much wetter 50s and 70s over SE Australia and I’m sure I said higher rainfall would return again.
I’ll stand corrected but I’m sure I heard that the MDB was now holding near record levels in the storages and I would guess that would be at least 75% capacity.
Just proves that given right circumstances weather/rainfall can change dramatically over a very short period of time.
Yes Neville – and everyone knows that stuff and the underpinning science has been done by AGW scientists. The IPO x ENSO interaction is over 10 years old … zzzzzzzzzzz
The triple whammy story was early in the papers.
But in general “skill” (LEPS, ROCS etc) is only there at about 6 months lead.
You guys are only telling us what’s been known for yonks. Read the SEACI material and get updated. Or will it take you 20 years to catch on.
When you put up your own forecasts with spatial maps on the web ahead of time and keep the archive there – well let’s chat. Otherwise you’re just another “I knew that” ratbag retrospective pseudo forecaster. Having a bit of an episodic philosophise session post-hoc in the newspapers doesn’t count for diddly squat.
It’s not about “whether it rains again” – the point the you antediluvian knuckle draggers don’t get is what the “how many years out of ten, the rainfall pattern change looks like” – how many years do you lose money, make money, break even. Extend the lose money slice of the pie by more persistent phenomena and bye bye.
Well in the last week Canada has shown the way forward to sensible govt and hopefully Labor will be booted out here at the next election.
But now even the Moonbat is coming around, the link to his column here is a very good read.
If even this bloke can begin to wake up perhaps we might start to get back on the path to logic and reason once again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/monbiot-smacks-head-first-into-reality/#more-39304
We now have an official definition for Luke:
“Here’s how the online Urban Dictionary defines a warmenist: “Gullible, scientificially (sic) illiterate, unthinking acolyte and zombie-fired propagandist of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
One in the eye, one supposes, for all those academies of science which have declared they accept the science of global warming and man’s role in it. But the definition goes on: “One who takes direct orders from High Priest King of Idiocy, Albert J. Gore. One who puts the “mental” in environmentalism. Historical inheritors of those who believed that King Canute could hold back the tides and that the wolf would eat the moon unless their first-born daughter’s virginity was sacrificed to the local shaman.”
Im not sure Luke that many here think sea lvl is not rising…its just that over the last decade it is rising more slowly than before….the science/ modelling is clearly over exagerating the rate of increase…just like it does with most of the the things it predicts or says about climate change.
The link to Ove is a cry of desperation. This is the man who has told us numerous times the barrier reef is doomed. The 10 points made by combet are mostly pathetic and do you no credit.
I just tried to post a comment but a problem occurred and i cant be bothered re writing it ( stupid me for not using word!)…but anybody suggesting the sceince is settled is clearly desperate and uninformed…..“The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report,” noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. “We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!””, published april 21 in the science magazine
Luke,
You are missing the point.
You become furious and reactive when you think that people are attacking the scientists en masse.
Pay attention.
It is the inappropriate use of science and computer models that is being attacked.
The funding and extremely expensive obsession with climate change and AGW is also being questioned.
Even the ‘cognitave dissonance’ in the SEACI work is rather questionable.
The bottom line is as you have said:
But in general “skill” (LEPS, ROCS etc) is only there at about 6 months lead.
So why are we making political decisions and also listening to and confirming alarmist comments that go way farther than 6 months?
Why are they claiming that science and modeling can do this?
They are using this very same information.
Instead of arguing with and pointing the finger at people who are asking valid questions, how about you cast your eyes towards and point your finger at the people who are using the information inappropriately?
At the moment they are using this information to validate a carbon tax, cripple productive farming in the MDB, destabilise the power industry and several other rather questionable activities.
ie….
Climate science and associated computer modelling is not crystal ball!!!!
see you in Brisbane tomorrow. I’m driving up tomorrow morning.
Debs
Far from furious – seasonal forecasting is a different problem to climate modelling. Look up the difference between initial value and boundary condition problems and we’ll chat.
Tony – the news about the ozone hole as player in southern hemisphere climate change is old news . Ask Susan Solomon who both presented the IPCC Exec Summary and did the ozone work. Do try to keep up eh?
The ‘science of climate change remains uncertain, the appropriate policy setting should be one of preparation for and adaptation to all climate events and hazards as they occur.’
Carter et al April 25, 2011
Plan B.
‘Seasonal forecasting is a different problem to climate modelling.’
Do they use the same models? Could you explain the difference in a couple of pars?
I’m having this argument elsewhere and your considered advice would be appreciated.
El Gordo – they may or may not use the same models. For example, season forecasts can be made using statistical correlations with the SOI or SST grid boxes (or solar, lunar , whatever your poison).
GCM – sophisticated grid box climate models with heaps of physical equations may also be used and there is a trend towards only having one model for weather through seasonal to climate change.
However – you need to understand the difference between initial value problems like forecasts and climate change runs (boundary condition problems).
A large part of a weather forecast for example is getting the initial conditions right (all manner of pressure, temperature, moisture fields) and the let the model run forward. As we know after a week to ten days the models get off track and become chaotic.
With climate change nobody seriously expects to forecast weather on July 8 2050 – it becomes a boundary condition problem and all you can do is “sample” a range of possible climates around that decade. It’s coarse stuff. But will show effects like a drying of the sub-tropics as an example.
So why do seasonal forecasts “work” at all. Well they have limited skill because we know ENSO and phenomena like the IOD demonstrate persistence over a season. i.e. ENSO locks in late autumn to early winter and hangs around till the next autumn when you go into the predictability barrier zone again. And like weather forecasting – seasonal forecasts using GCMs need good definition of the initial conditions as well as some persistence in the phenomena they are based on – like ENSO.
Also seasonal forecasts are far from perfect 70:30 to 60:40 type ability. And you need to peer into the mathematics of “skill” i.e. LEPS, ROCS, Kruskal-Wallis, and Kolmogorov Smirnov
e.g. forecast might say a 90% chance – but if the forecast “skill” map showed low skill – you still might ignore it. You need high forecast skill and high probability of rainfall (and even said that minority odds will occur if you throw the dice enough times)
(See BoM’s “consistency” maps on its seasonal forecast site)
So basically you would want to be very careful using seasonal forecasts if you don’t know the product limitations.
And again – seasonal forecasting is a quasi initial value problem – climate change runs are about changed boundary conditions on forcings. (or course the models can still be wrong – but the fact that they can generate a passable planet-wide meteorological system with fronts and all manner of meteorological phenomena is impressive stuff – this is massive scale simulation 100000s lines of code not some simple regression model – and model builders are obsessed with validating their models – that’s basically what they do for a living – validate)
Oh – and the reason seasonal forecasters often get into climate change is because they start to detect trends in their indices i.e. a warming Indian Ocean – trends in your baseline phenomena tend to stuff up your forecasting maths no end. And often the more they look the more trends they find. like in frost frequency
Want my two bobs on the system to watch – get yourself a SPOTA account – has two indices – one for ENSO and one for IPO – and clever as it uses gradients across SST zones to try “climate change” proof the forecast. System is statistical not a GCM.
Thanks for that, Luke.
Me thinks Bob Brown is more an agrarian socialist and doesn’t know it.
http://kimsonof.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/original_image.png
“With climate change nobody seriously expects to forecast weather on July 8 2050 – it becomes a boundary condition problem and all you can do is “sample” a range of possible climates around that decade. It’s coarse stuff. But will show effects like a drying of the sub-tropics as an example.”
There lies the problem!
We have politicians + Greens using this type of information to claim alarm and dangerous human induced climate for several decades, calling it ‘settled’ and using it to validate legislation like a carbon tax.
Then they expect us to believe that by imposing a carbon tax on us they can mitigate the effects of these questionable attempts at modeling??????
It’s not just a carbon tax. They’re using this ‘settled science’ to impose a raft of legislation.
Then they claim if we don’t support a carbon tax (or whichever piece of legislation), that therefore means we don’t care about man’s influence on the delicate balance of nature and climate????
HUH?????
Well Debs – we probably do need global action or run the risk of a more droughty sub-tropics and a raft of relatively quick other effects. This is all about risk analysis. Uncontrolled CO2 growth in the atmosphere is a global experiment of concern. At this point you’re probably at least committed to 2C.
But you need a global deal to make a carbon tax and/or ETS work (not a unilateral Aussie deal). And it will cost – to tell anyone otherwise is lying. So the electorate will vote it down.
Therefore we can adapt like the Mayans did (didn’t).
But you best key to adaptation is to understand the climate mechanisms at work – so you should be grateful for the boys and girls working on these climate problems. Smarties will learn quickly. You need to conceptually split the climate science from the greenhouse mitigation issue.
Having being enjoined by Jen to “cast around a little wider” and listen to “the many well-qualified meteorologists, hydrologists and paleoclimatologists” on the basis they offer more accurate forecasts ( presumably on a climate change not driven by carbon dioxide). Cast around I did. In Australia the many are few – three in fact; but one of each namely Kinninmonth, Franks and Plimer. I can find no others from those disciplines offering forecasts.
Well luke, SPOTA sounds good; how about letting us use your account?
I dunno Luke,
Sounds suspiciously like ‘Deliberative Global Governance” to me.
Honestly, when did a supposedly altruistic and noble decision made by a centralised government, that required them to collect and control all the finance and make all the decisions…… actually work?
Go through history and you can find the numerous attempts.
Finding one that actually worked is quite difficult. A few of them worked once the central government/ or pervading centralised body, was kicked out of the decision making process.
If they had something to do with shutting down and cutting back human ingenuity and access to productive resources, not a single one has worked.
That’s actually a reason why we had the dark ages.
Enlightenment came when people rebelled against the attempts of the church/state to control all aspects of their lives.
It came when people understood that no monopolised/central governance has ‘progress and innovation’ as a core belief.
Centralised government needs to maintain the staus quo.
They do that by arguing that autonomy and progressive and innovative thinking is scary and dangerous.
Sound familiar?
‘Current and previous SPOTA-1 reports, accessible through this website, are password protected, due to the system’s experimental status.’
That’s no good, I want to be converted now.
Well, the protest was a success – Jen was great, obviously an experienced protester by the speech she delivered 🙂
Bob Carter turned up which was a bonus for all.
El Gordo and Cohers – email rouseabout and ask for an account. How hard is that? I did. I’m told it’s passworded as that implies you have accepted its experimental nature.
Remember nothing is perfect and anyone who tells you they can get 90% right is a snake oil merchant. Useful skill levels with high probabilities is what you need. They don’t claim any skill through the autumn predictability barrier or high skill everywhere. SPOTA now has both cross validation on the tuned years data sets and also many independent years validation (not used in the forecast formulation).
Here’s the rave http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/about-spota1/pdf/ClimateToolsPaper.pdf
Thx for your condescension there Luke….so when we keep being told the science is settled and yet ozone was not even included in the last IPCC report, i hope you will excuse for me pointing out once again the bleeding obvious that the science is not settled and the IPCC doesnt have a clue….do keep up eh?
Ozone is included you illiterate goose. What do you call this !
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-6.html
What a dopey denialist – unable to read.
Oh yes, the IPCC and O3, right on top of that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/21/ozone-hole-caused-a-great-deal-of-the-climate-change-thats-been-observed/#more-38401
Nobody knows anything about nothing.
As usual more crap from Cohenite – Watts disinformation site says “First time that ozone depletion is shown to impact the entire circulation of the southern hemisphere” – SORRY – only about a decade too late HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5569/895.abstract
Peez orf !
And and and – gets better – who was one of the authors – Susan Solomon
Well ROFL and LMAO
Oh hell Luke, the IPCC tells us we’ve got “radiative forcing” from O3 as well !!!!
and here we are encouraging the stuff !!
IPCC….
” Moreover, ozone itself is a greenhouse gas”……
Now THAT’S what I call subtle verbaling Luke.
Mack this is very old news – but ozone in the stratosphere causes different climate outcomes to ozone as an additional greenhouse gas in the stratosphere.
it’s a greenhouse gas like water vapour, methane CO2, carbon monoxide (very weakly directly), CFC-12, HCFC-22, Tetrafluoromethane, Hexafluoroethane, Sulphur hexafluoride and Nitrogen trifluoride (thanks to plasma & LCD TVs and electronics manufacturing)
Luke,
You spout the same old “greenhouse” nonsense every time. You’ve got this devious ploy of including water vapour as a gas (what the hell is clouds!?) which yes you could say has a “greenhouse effect” when it slows the rate of heat loss from earth.
All the other gases you CONVENIENTLY and subtly classify as the earths “greenhouse” poisons including the greatest poison of all……CO2 .
Better stop breathing Luke, you’re having a “greenhouse effect”
What bunk Mack – a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas with radiative properties. It’s basic stuff. I never said CO2 was poison – don’t bung on the sceptic meme about poisons. What tripe.
What’s devious about about including water vapor as a GHG – you’d like to argue its not?
Want to see what happens from a massive release of GHGs – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Average global temperatures increased by ~6°C within about 20,000 years.
How tedious you are luke, not seeing the difference between the Polvani and the Soloman efforts on O3; to be expected I suppose, look what your errant chums are up to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384390/Climategate-scientists-secretive-broken-Freedom-Information-laws.html
I like this:
“The two further investigations also concluded that the scientists were honest but they were criticised for being disorganised, poor with figures and naïve.”
And people want us to believe these wretches; I think I’ll just settle in and wait for Monckton to arrive.
So we’ve got just about everything in the atmosphere except N2 and O2 as a “greenhouse gas” ?eh Luke.
Much in the same way as just about every climatic event is now global warming?
Yep N2 and O2 aren’t – is this some sort of surprise. It’s pure physics matey. Are you actually that bereft?
Atmosphere 78% N2 21% O2
No not every event is AGW – trends are – and well demonstrated.
Monckton – ROFL – Lambert is just waiting poon that newb again. But hey he’s a great act for pensioner scaring tours.
Thanks for the SPOTA info luke; 2 things: if above average rainfall was predicted for QLD why were the Wivenhoe operators holding excess water?
Secondly, regional SST are above average but global SST have been falling since 2003; this tallies with the relocation of the warm water during La Nina periods where that relocated evaporative source pushes the increase in rain onto parts of Australia.
Well ask the “owners” of the dam manual. However – no forecast technology could ahead of time predicted the Murphy’s Creek /Toowoomba episode or massive high intensity event over Wivenhoe Dam itself.
Hindsight is wonderful of course. That “event” could have hit the Gold Coast instead or not materialised.
The Brisbane BoM had been in the press well before December predicting a biggie wet as was the Lord Mayor.
And strange bedfellows too of course – coming off a big drought an people whinging about costs of water (still today) http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-water-bills-to-rise-20110509-1eewj.html
dam does a big flood compartment, and engineers were not asleep.
Yeah it’s all “greenhouse gas forcing” eh Luke.
Water vapour is forcing , CO2 is forcing , O3 is forcing, CH3 is forcing etc etc,
And you’ve got the “CO2 forcing” conveniently buried in amongst it all.
You’re just a bit player amongst charlatans Luke.