OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid, or a brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough intelligence to waste your time with.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Ah, well. I was trying for entertainment value.

When I was growing up out in the stix of SA the olds taught us kids the "bait the travelling salesman" game.

The object of the game was never entirely clear but the rules were definitely time-varying. Some easy points were usually scored by getting the guy to admit something they claimed as "free" was not free.

I remember some happy times watching some guy get the treatment. Mum and Dad (both veteran cops) would start off slow, but as the pace increased and the questions became tricky the guy would usually contradicted himself a few times before the errors were underlined to him a few times. Even if the shade temp wasn't into triple digits he would be sweating to explain why black was white and white was black in order to close the sale. Not they anyone was going to buy the over-priced brushes anyway.

In this case I was hoping the guy was either going to claim CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, or that no-one was burning anything, or maybe that CO2 knows the different between being added to the atm by Man or natural processes.

--
[The non-obvious cause of Ice Ages:]
But the Earth produces also the ice dust and export it into space.
Probably in ice ages the ice dust fall down on the Earth.
If the Earth was covered by ice the water to made it could not be from 
oceans It was from the space.
-- "Szczepan Bialek" , 7 Jul 2011 10:08 +0200

I'm not confused about which ones are scientists - some of the so called scientists are!

The majority of scientists do NOT "go out and measure things that confirm or not an initial hypothesis" but accept what they are "taught" about a whole range of things - just like the rest of us. Very few scientists will actually check that all these things are true by doing their own confirmation experiments for any hypotheses.

True, they may read "papers" and consider them "good science" but the majority will never repeat those experiments to confirm the results for themselves. And this is true in many day to day activities of us "normal" people where we learn something in school, university, etc. and use that as the basis for our future expansion of that subject. Sometimes using this approach comes unstuck when an anomaly is found and then "exceptions to the rule" are created to mask the problem.

The trouble with proving AGW is that they haven't actually "proved" that the Earth will be 2 degrees (or whatever) hotter in 100 years time. They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has happened in the recent past. It's like me saying that if I accelerate my car linearly from 0 to 100kph in 10 mins that I will be driving at

200kph in 20 mins or 600kph in 60 mins. Perfectly reasonable if I draw a graph of speed against time and then extrapolate from the 10 min point onwards. The only trouble is that when I reach the 10 min mark I may start linearly breaking and slow the car to a dead stop at the 20 min mark - then where does my future speed hypothsis stand?

-- Sell your surplus electronic components at

Search or browse for that IC, capacitor, crystal or other component you need. Or find new components at

...

Trying to move the goalposts?

Remember your chosen topic is "the people that claimed the Earth was round" and "those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the universe".

Scientists do things like put regression lines through random time-series.

E.g.

It's called hypothesis testing.

Everthing else is engineering.

--
Scientists don't look at records, they use regression analysis.  One
can't find a trend by looking at extrema.  
-- Roger Coppock , 26 Jan 2011 19:57 -0800

yeah m your a twit , u SIMPLY ACCEPT , u dont even bother finding out for ya self...

...

Sounds like a simple projection.

What have you gone out and measured to make you sure of your position?

Don't worry. It's rhetorical. We know you generally can't prove a negative that way.

Hence: "If an eminent scientist examines all the evidence and concludes that something is not so, they are most likely wrong". -- Albert E

Moreso for non-scientists, one assumes.

-- Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last

50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. -- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the

Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100

g out for

He just goes to a "priest" (Ipcc Et al) who tells him what to think and how to think and says "yes master", even if they were to tell him the sky was green.

You guys keep confusing the Pope (the guy that accepts what he reads in the old books) with Galileo (the guy that measures something and decides for hisself).

Not really unusual. It probably takes one to know one.

--
If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats. 
-- Howard Aiken

ing out for

e l t

arbon

fe in the

0

Al Gore, self proclaimed expert has been reported to be buying waterfront property, apparently Rudd has done the same. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Might be a good time to get into beach front property once the market finishes dropping.

kreed wrote: ...

The Lex Luthor stategy. :)

The California coast sounds like it should have very very high returns. (AKA a "courageous investment" in Yes Minister terminology).

Heavy coastal erosion in 2009-2010 winter linked to climate change

Suzanne Bohan Contra Costa Times [Cal, US]

07/14/2011 03:20:53 PM PDT

The storms that battered the W Coast during the winter of 2009-10 eroded record chunks of shoreline, and more will likely disappear as the changing climate brings more such powerful storm seasons, scientists warn in a new study.

Pacific waves were 20% stronger on average than any y since 1997 and higher-than-usual sea levels drove them further inland, tearing away on average 1/3 more land in California.

The state's beaches were "eroded to often unprecedented levels," said Patrick Barnard, a coastal geologist with the US Geological Survey who led the research.

"It's the kind of winter we may experience more frequently" as global temperatures rise, he said.

Nowhere along the W Coast was erosion more pronounced than at Ocean Beach in San Francisco. That winter, the Pacific encroached 184 feet inland, 75% more than in a typical season.

Waves reaching 30 feet eroded bluffs and triggered the collapse of a section of Highway 1. It reopened with one of its 2 southbound lanes permanently closed. San Francisco built a 425-foot rock bulwark to protect the road and the wastewater treatment plant behind it.

The southern end of Ocean Beach "really is in a sad state," said Benjamin Grant, a consultant with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. He's leading the nonprofit's development of a voluntary master plan for the beach.

"Large piles of rubble make it very difficult to move along the beach or across the beach to get into the water. "... Ocean Beach really looks like a lot more of (what) the California coast is going to look like in 20, 30, 40,

50 years," Grant said. "It's a glimpse of California's future in some ways."

The raging storms also stripped several San Diego beaches, leaving nothing but "cobble, boulders and just rock," Barnard said.

Bluff, dune and cliff erosion, along with winter waves hauling off fine sand, is part of the natural dynamic along coastlines. Summer brings smaller waves carrying sand back on shore, replenishing beaches.

However, after the winter of 2009-10, there was less beach replenishment than usual. That leaves scoured beaches vulnerable to even worse erosion if one powerful winter is followed by another.

The force behind the damaging storms of 2009-10 was a different type of El Ni?o, a climate pattern that periodically brings wetter winters to the California coast.

Warmer-than-usual sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial region of the Pacific create the classic El Ni?o, which drenched California during the winters of 1982-83 and 1997-98.

But researchers observed another type of El Ni?o has become far more prevalent, the Central Pacific El Ni?o.

It's characterized by warm sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific, flanked on the E and W by cooler waters. It's also called El Ni?o Modoki; the last word is Japanese for "similar, but different."

The new study notes that the Modoki occurred more frequently during the past 2 decades than the classic El Ni?o. Climate change is expected to raise central Pacific water temperatures, increasing by as much as fivefold of El Ni?o Modoki frequency, according to a 2009 study in Nature.

The estimated frequency is based on varying projections for carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades.

Given the odds that the newly identified El Ni?o will continue its regular appearance, researchers decided to compare its effects to a typical El Ni?o, Barnard said.

They found that Modoki packs a punch when compared to a typical El Ni?o.

"Pretty much everywhere we surveyed, the erosion during the 2009-10 winter was comparable to or more severe" than the classic El Ni?o in 1997-98, Barnard said.

He acknowledged that the study encompassed 5 to 13 y of data, depending upon the beach. The researchers studied sections of the coastline, using GPS, buoys and airborne laser mapping between Seattle and San Diego.

But given what he called a startling lack of coastline studies, Barnard said the data they gathered "is the best we have. There's nothing like it, and it covers a really broad area."

Barnard was the lead author of the study, published by the American Geophysical Union on July 9 in Geophysical Research Letters. Researchers with

5 other institutions participated.

With little more than a decade of data, "we couldn't unequivocally" say this portends the future, he said.

"But there's no indication that there's a light at the end of the tunnel anytime soon, given the current trends that we're observing."

--
[CO2 can tell who added it to the atm:]
you retarded or what , its  the  NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES  TAHT WE SEE,  IT 
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..
YOU SPASTIC MOOORION
-- "no one" , 14 Jul 2011 17:23 +0930

...

I just remembered. If only you had mentioned your plan earlier I could have put you onto my sister.

She was trying to unload^h^h^hsell some land up on the Whitsundays she bought a few years back. Well... lemme think.... maybe 30 years back.

In the interim it seems to have developed cyclone-prone and swampy tendancies.

But maybe it's just a statistical abberation?

--
They said it was only luck. But the more I practised, the luckier I got.
-- Gary Player [and others]

Trevor Wilson wrote: ...

To share a small joke. I just read a headline roughly along the lines of "The US may be sweltering, but it's nowhere near the record for heatwaves".

About 1/2 the US has seen a week or 2 with daily max into triple digits. Fairly unusual.

But optimism knowing no bounds, the writer of the article pointed out there was nothing to worry about because the

2 wks was nowhere near the record -- 154 consecutive days with max over 100 F.

Of course that's in Death Valley.

The joke part?

We're comparing population centres in the US with Death Valley and congratulating ourselves it ain't as hot as that, now, are we?

--
[Some gmail n00b can't config for HTML or use Google News:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
Would you like to see how it appears in a compliant newsreader, which
all of the usenet with IQs beyond single digits use? It appears as
above in the quoted text - NO IMAGES AT ALL! ROTFL
-- Gillard Lies , 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)

**Correct. You need to understand where Arrhenius lived to appreciate why thought that more CO2 was a good idea. Unfortunately, the information Arrheius had to work with was scant and he was clearly unaware of many of the ramifications of a warming planet.

Arrhenius thought the

**Indeed. He thought exactly that. Fortunately we now have a lot more information about the ramifications of a warming planet and realise that Arrheius' OPINIONS on what may or may not be good for the planet were unscientific speculation. **Huh? Direct me to where the climatologists have been claiming that the planet is cooling. What YOU seem to be overlooking is that it is going to be very difficult to grow crops under sea water. Long before that becomes a problem, however, there will be massive shifts in where crops can be successfully grown. **Short answer: No.

Long answer: How do you suggest we deal with the expected 75 Metres of sea level rise and the consequent destruction of arable and inhabited land? Bangladesh, for instance, will lose huge amounts of valuable land, placing many millions of people searching for a place to live. Australia, perhaps?

**I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it is vital. However, mitigation of the problem is a far better course of action. **No one said it would. It COULD reach toxic levels though. There is enough carbon on the planet to poison all the humans (after burning). That said, you seem to miss the looming problem. Commonly referred to as the 'tipping point'. It is estimated that when atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 500ppm, that there will be nothing we can do stop runaway warming of 6 degrees C or more. At this point, the methane will be released from the permafrost regions (which is starting to occur now), thus causing a dramatic increase in the warming. Outgassing of CO2 from the oceans will add to the effect. No one has figured how to prevent the runaway, once it starts. Forget about crops. The massive sea level rise will finish off much of our society. The cost will be incalculable.

There is a natural brake on

**Is there? What would that "brake" be? Please describe the action and cite your science in your proof.

And if global warming continues for

**That much you have right. After most of the people have been wiped from this planet, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will fall. In a few tens of thousands of years (or a few hundred thousand years), then the planet may return to the state that it resembles today. Of course, our civilisation will have been destroyed in the process.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**Incorrect. ALL those individuals have the same access to information from climatologists that I do. Their ignorance stems from the fact that they choose to ignore what the climatologists say and believe what some religious nutter, or talk-back radio host says about AGW.

Either the climatologists are correct about the climate, or the talk-back radio hosts are. I know who I am putting my money on.

They are

**No, they're not. The people who work in climatology tells us that AGW is a major problem. Those who work in radio, religion or geology claim otherwise. Of course, none of those people has any real experience in climatology. I **Nope. They are wrong, according to the climatologists.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**I guess. With an opponent that is so clearly deranged (or very young), I don't see any value in bothering. **Fair enough. Good with it. It appears to be too stupid to appreciate being caught in a contradiction. At least the other opponents have some intelligence. It's just that they choose not to use it in this matter.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**It is truly sad. I complain about Australians, but, for Americans, this issue is simply not even on the radar (well, most of them).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**Er, nope. The SCIENTISTS stated that the Earth was round(ish) and that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. The religious nutters claimed otherwise. Not unlike the situation we have today. The scientists (climatologists) have patiently supplied their data which demonstrates that AGW is occuring. The relgious fruitloops (Abbott, Pell, Minchin, Monckton, et al) claim they are wrong. **That's you cliam. You tell us. Whilst you are at it, tell us how many times the religious fruitcakes have been correct, vs. the scientists. **And there are BILLIONS of religious nutters on this planet. Guess what? The religious nutters are wrong and the scientists are right. **That's the weather, you idiot.

AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by

**Prove it. In your proof, you may care to note who pays Monckton (Gina Rhinehart), Alan Jones (Gina Rhinehart), Plimer (Gina Rhinehart and the fossil fuel industry), et al. Who do you think earns the most money?

Alan Jones, Monckton and Plimer, or this guy?

And the UN is the

**Prove it. Submit your science that proves the IPCC is incorrect.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**You are seriously deluded and very, very confused. The religious nutters claimed that the Earth was flat and that it was at the centre of the universe. It took scientists to prove otherwise. NO different to the situation we have today. Monckton, Abbott, Minchin and Pell are all religious fruitcakes that claim the scientists are wrong. You keep putting your faith in the religious nutters and see how far you get in an argument. **Clearly, you have zero idea of any real scientists. I suggest you contact a few and ask questions. Stop talking to your religious instructors. They know f*ck all about science. As do you. **Utter and complete bullshit.

And this is true in many day to day activities of us

**How can they? No one can. The predictions are based on what has occured in the past 100 years. The planet has warmed, due to the influence of higher CO2 emissions. The data gathered suggests that a MINIMUM 2 degree C rise is highly likely (95% confidence).

They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has

**Duh.

It's like me saying that if I accelerate

**No. It is nothing like that. That is YOUR strawman. YOu built it, you burn it down.

Perfectly reasonable if I

**Think on this:

If the fire brigade came knocking on your door and told you that there was a

95% probability that your house would burn down (within 1 year), due to a set of specific circumstances, would you:

A) Cancel your household fire insurance? B) Renew your household fire insurance? C) Deal with as many of the specific circumstances that you could?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au