Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

I never stated that you only quoted the ABC - I just observed that you quote them frequently.

---

I had a look through all the links that I have posted in this thread, and there have been 26 in total (and I'm assuming that by quoting you mean the links, because I may quote part of what is in the link, but almost never quote without a link).

Of the 26 links there are
Guardian
6
ABC
8
Wiki
3
NASA
3
Google search
3
BOM
1
The Conversation
1
BBC
1

Which puts the ABC links at 31%. I don't see that as being disproportionate, and only 2 more than the Guardian. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Im keen to find out just what in my posts gave you that idea. Can you find an example of something I have posted, and quote it IN CONTEXT to make your case. Don't just take part of a post and quote it out of context like you did with Senator Molan.

---

Now I should have said "some" of your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC. I got that distinct impression from these two posts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Putting my own personal opinions aside to look at this from a purely logical point of view, there are really two ways to look at this:

1. Newscorp is telling the truth, or
2. Newscorp is running an misinformation campaign.

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

---

This post reads as though Newscorp couldn't possibly be running a misinformation campaign. You have to ask why Murdoch would run a misinformation campaign? Really? Surely it's bleeding obvious - feed the paranoia and people will read that news which is all pay-walled. As well as that he desperately doesn't want a Labor Govt because he believes (possibly correctly) that they will make changes to media ownership laws that will restrict him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

That's what they said when the science of the day all pointed to the Earth being flat and people were persecuted for arguing that it was round at the time.

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing. As it changes life evolves. The day of the dinosaur is gone and for the time being it's our turn. Nothing we can do can change that inevitably the planet will not naturally support human life after some as yet undetermined time. At best we can delay the inevitable.

---

This to me was the strongest indicator of all - it's the classic denier's argument - CC has always been happening, and always will (which are both true, btw) but it does not say anything about whether or not we have contributed to it.

So Doug, you can settle your position once and for all, rather than saying you haven't said this or that. Do you accept the CC science that we have rapidly escalated the situation, or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Now I should have said "some" of your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC. I got that distinct impression from these two posts:
This post reads as though Newscorp couldn't possibly be running a misinformation campaign. You have to ask why Murdoch would run a misinformation campaign? Really? Surely it's bleeding obvious - feed the paranoia and people will read that news which is all pay-walled. As well as that he desperately doesn't want a Labor Govt because he believes (possibly correctly) that they will make changes to media ownership laws that will restrict him.

---

So I didn't actually SAY it, you just extrapolated what you wanted from it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

This to me was the strongest indicator of all - it's the classic denier's argument - CC has always been happening, and always will (which are both true, btw) but it does not say anything about whether or not we have contributed to it.

---

So I made a true statement - by your admission, but because I did not actually say whether we have contributed to it or not (which was not critical to the point I was making) you automatically jumped to a conclusion that suits your agenda.

Why don't you just accuse me of stealing your childhood too? :roll:

You are just being cranky and argumentative Doug - maybe just for the sake of it, I don't know, but I'm going to disengage from that. I never said that you did SAY anything, but that there was an indication - it's up to you whether or not you clarify your position on whether you accept the science or not.

As for your "stealing childhood" comment: that is completely unnecessary, unhelpful, and somewhat melodramatic.

If you need to have a last word then go for it - I'm not a last word person, and I am now disengaged from pointless pedantic argument for the sake of it.

Ok...... Shed time for a while........

DavidG Moderator......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As for your "stealing childhood" comment: that is completely unnecessary, unhelpful, and somewhat melodramatic.

---

But it was ok for you to lay that crap on me, misrepresenting my intentions and I was just supposed to take it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidG

Ok...... Shed time for a while........

DavidG Moderator......

---

OOPS - I just saw this on the next page of the thread after I made the reply above :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Stated or quoted doesn't matter. Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I still don't know what you mean. "Otherwise" to what?

---

You said:

“ And I didn’t say that you said I only quote one source.”

Yet you said -

“Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only.”

Quiet time.............

So...you go to the doctor and after a few tests the doc says "you've got idiopathicthrombocytopenicpurpura. Its a rare disease and it will kill you most unpleasantly if we don't treat it. The only thing to do is to take a course of cortisone and that might stop it. You say "Hang on I don't want to take cortisone or any steroid drugs I am going to get a second opinion. So off you go to another doc, more examination, more tests..."Yep, you have idiopathicthrombo etc. and you will have to take cortisone! "No thanks, you say, I am going to get another opinion...Doc number three says the same thing, as does Doc number four...At what stage do you decide to go to the witchdoctor club and get a script for activated mud to rub on your temples while humming a lullaby? That is how climate change deniers are thinking. You don't need to be a doctor to listen to a doctor. You don't need to become a climate scientist to get what is happening. You just need to understand that science is a tool which allows us to understand reality with a degree of accuracy that has never before been available to the human race and with this tool we have built global civilization. You deny science as the world community has been doing for the last thirty years or so and the whole thing will fall apart, as it appears to be doing right now. The consequences of adding gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere are well understood and if we do nothing the resultant climate chaos will be very bad indeed. That is all there is to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

You said: “ And I didn’t say that you said I only quote one source.”
Yet you said - “Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only.”

---

I'm going to have to give up trying to figure out what the problem is there. I do not see any contradiction - just a statement that I don't take news from only one source. I didn't mention my New York Times subscription, which is mainly for USA political news during the current turmoil, but they do also cover CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

As the the ABC reporting from various sources, it would seem that they choose whom they report. That could be construed as pushing an agenda in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Who do you think we should be reading then, if you think that the ABC could be construed as having an agenda? What are the sources to be trusted?

---

You haven't responded to that. Who can we trust, in your opinion?

Here's a very detailed breakdown of what the population thinks about it all. With a sample size of 54,000 it's about 50x more reliable than political opinion polls (which sample 1000 people at most).

Apologies for it being not only FROM the ABC, but BY the ABC (but the opinions are those of the population - it's just the cunning way the ABC manipulated them into answering the questions the way the ABC wanted them answered). Pardon my sarcasm, but under the circumstances :roll::doh:
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

Interesting facts on "Rising Sea Levels"

Attachment 468244

---

As a Dehydrated Hydrographer, I'll leave it to Alex to cast an expert opinion on that ahem, half-page "paper". In the interim I think I'd be more likely to trust someone with a nasa.com email address rather than 4/6 people with the same surname and a Bigpond email address.

You say you are wary of people with an agenda to push to justify their own end, so we'll have to see if the Fitzhenry clan have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

BUT it's an ABC News thing......

---

You mean the pdf you posted? Firstly, you need to provide a link if that's the case (in the interest of full disclosure and context), and secondly...I have never said that I place unfailing trust in the ABC (if that is what you are driving at). As I said yesterday, most of the time the ABC is reporting other scientists etc so it's not whether or not the ABC is to be believed, but rathermore the scientist or whomever they are reporting on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crowie

Interesting facts on "Rising Sea Levels"

Attachment 468244

---

Thanks Peter. I'm tend to be pretty sceptical about this type of thing, especially if it's an individual not backed by a major institution. Scientific rigour is everything in my book and anybody who fudges figures should be ostracised.

I looked up the monthly BOM records for Fort Denison. Firstly that bloke is quite wrong. The 1914 average was not 1.111, only May 1914 was. They started recording Fort Denison data in May and took 8 monthly readings that year resulting in an average of 0.925. He claims 2019 at 1.05 but its actually 1.006. I imagine sea levels at any given period are a function of temperature, humidity, el nino, la nina etc. and the data is statistically very noisy.

I was disappointed to hear Jim Molan, speak about "scientific opinion" on Q&A. It's not opinion, it's fact. I'm still waiting for some credible scientific evidence from the deniers.

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

I looked up the monthly BOM records for Fort Denison. Firstly that bloke is quite wrong. The 1914 average was not 1.111, only May 1914 was. They started recording Fort Denison data in May and took 8 monthly readings that year resulting in an average of 0.925. He claims 2019 at 1.05 but its actually 1.006. I imagine sea levels at any given period are a function of temperature, humidity, el nino, la nina etc. and the data is statistically very noisy.

---

It definitely looks "noisy" when plotted on a graph. Here is all available records from Fort Dennison graphed. There is a visible rise over the 100+ years.

Monthly sea levels for Fort Denison (Sydney) - 1914 to 2019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

I was disappointed to hear Jim Molan, speak about "scientific opinion" on Q&A. It's not opinion, it's fact. I'm still waiting for some credible scientific evidence from the deniers.

---

This. Glider is right.

Science isn't an opinion.

It is the seeking of facts.

I fail to understand how CCD's can accept all other areas of our life that involve science as good/acceptable/right, yet be so sceptical on this single area of study? Medicine (more than fine! Its keeping half of you alive and sane), Biology (food preservation), Genetics (food! Disease prevention!), Physics (your microwaves, digital watches and the damned computers you are typing on)...

Worse, CCDs aren't being asked what they THINK. They are being TOLD a fact.

Its data. Hard, calculated, verifiable data.

What I don't understand, truly... really truly, is why CCD's are so violently opposed. It won't affect them, really. It wont generally cost them a job. It wont make their lives WORSE. I simply don't get it.

If the rest of us a wrong, so what? What harm have we done by... planing more trees, increasing solar, wind and other energy sources, reduced pollution from coal and petrol, being more economical with our resources... WHAT FRICKIN HARM IS THERE?

Oh, and there is this: What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News


edit 1: There is one reason for CCD's to deny this so utterly... They are terrified. Utterly existentially terrified, filled with dread that "we" might be right.

Their world views, centres of understanding, religion, moralities, assets, social circles and ability to cope are fundamentally challenged.

It isn't CC that they are denying - they are denying their ability to cope. To understand. To conceive of something different... or worse, make them redundant.

This isn't about the planet, or humanity, or society - its about themselves.


edit 2: Here is a Wikipedia article that discusses denial and what it means: Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Quite right, woodpixel!!

I'm going back to the shed...

mick :)

As I have said before, the climate has been changing ever since the planet had one. Nobody seems to be denying this. Of course human activity has had an impact on this particularly over the industrialized time. We are a very large part of the makeup of the planet and our influence is obvious everywhere.

What I do not get in this whole discussion in this thread is why it is so important to a few members here that all and sundry are of the same opinion as they are on the subject. The whole thing has become more heated and pointless than a religious war.

I have been treated as a pariah after being accused on no evidence of being a climate change denier for saying the climate change has been going on forever but neglecting to also say in the same paragraph that man is complicit in its acceleration. I also did not say that Canberra is the capital city of Australia so I guess that means I don't believe that either?

I really think it's time some people had a good look at how they are responding to others' opinions and not get all caught up in the hype surrounding what is of course a very important issue.

If someone is not as passionate about the issue as you are, or for that matter even if they have a different point of view (and yes you can have a different point of view without being in denial, their opinions are no less valuable than yours. Some are showing exactly the sort of intolerance as they are claiming the CCD;s are giving them. If the entire matter was as cit and dried as some are making out then the solution would be obvious and would have been put into place already. This has not happened so obviously there is room for debate over different ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

edit 1: There is one reason for CCD's to deny this so utterly... They are terrified. Utterly existentially terrified, filled with dread that "we" might be right.

Their world views, centres of understanding, religion, moralities, assets, social circles and ability to cope are fundamentally challenged.

It isn't CC that they are denying - they are denying their ability to cope. To understand. To conceive of something different... or worse, make them redundant.

This isn't about the planet, or humanity, or society - its about themselves.

---

I agree it is about self interest (unfortunately we are all self interested to a degree) and it is the ultra conservatism raising it's ugly head. It is the major players that feed this fear in the interest of their own agendas: Nothing to do with facts. It is of course much easier to sling mud and rubbish than to undertake surveys. Did FenceFurniture comment that the deniers don't actually back their statements with research, although they do cherry pick. An aspect that has considerably assisted is that much of climate science is not clear clear cut. It is not a lineal progression and it allows various factions to take advantage of that when offering up their own reasons for change not happening.

One other thing I would point to ,and I believe many of us are guilty of this, certainly I am, and it is that if we form an opinion in the early stages of a discussion it is difficult to shake us from that belief. We seek to confirm our belief much more vigorously than we challenge our belief.

This is from WP's second edit:

"Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.<sup>[26][27][28]"

It appears we do not readily learn from the mistakes of the past and the behaviour of the major (think: influential) players.

Regards
Paul</sup>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As a Dehydrated Hydrographer, I'll leave it to Alex to cast an expert opinion on that ahem, half-page "paper". In the interim I think I'd be more likely to trust someone with a nasa.com email address rather than 4/6 people with the same surname and a Bigpond email address.

You say you are wary of people with an agenda to push to justify their own end, so we'll have to see if the Fitzhenry clan have one.

---

It's coming up as an "Invalid Attachment". Do you have a link please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

It's coming up as an "Invalid Attachment". Do you have a link please.

---

Oh dear, the original post that it was in seems to have gone missing.

Luckily, I have one that was prepared before......

Attachment 468265


It was said to have been "an ABC News thing", but searching the ABC for "Fitzhenry" yields one hit about sewerage outfalls (quoting two of the people in that Climate Debate document - jpg image above)
Sydney beaches: From 'septic tank' to billion dollar gems - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Searching for "Fort Denison" brings up about 10-12 hits (the oldest of which is 2015), none of which are anything to do with sea levels.

Searching for "Sea Level" brings up 205 pages of hits, and certainly the first 2 pages are all to do with rising sea levels....

Searching for "fort denison sea level" brings up nothing relevant (all sports links).

The reason the sea levels are rising is all the new ships being built and launched. Have you seen the size of those new cruise ships? Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer gets his Titanic II in the water!
Archimedes Principle.

Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer himself gets in the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience.

---

I did watch Q&A on Monday night and my impression was that the audience was 'stacked' with those that had been directly impacted by the fires. Typically Q&A selects its audience along political lines, with the composition selected being as close as possible to the voting proportions in the last election. The audience breakdown is announced at the beginning of each program. Applications to join the audience asks the following two questions:

<fieldset><legend style="max- 100%;">11. If a federal election for the House of Representatives was held today, which party would you vote for? (If unsure which party are you leaning towards?)</legend>

<input id="rblVotedParty_0" type="radio" name="rblVotedParty" value="Coalition (Liberal/National)" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblVotedParty_0" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Coalition (Liberal/National)</label>

<input id="rblVotedParty_1" type="radio" name="rblVotedParty" value="ALP" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblVotedParty_1" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">ALP</label>

<input id="rblVotedParty_2" type="radio" name="rblVotedParty" value="Greens" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblVotedParty_2" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Greens</label>

<input id="rblVotedParty_3" type="radio" name="rblVotedParty" value="Undecided" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblVotedParty_3" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Undecided</label>

<input id="rblVotedParty_4" type="radio" name="rblVotedParty" value="Other" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblVotedParty_4" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Other</label>

<label for="tbxOtherParty" id="lblOtherParty" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">If other please specify:</label><input name="tbxOtherParty" type="text" id="tbxOtherParty" readonly="readonly" style="font-family: ABCSans; border- border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(151, 151, 151); color: black; 713.8px; box-shadow: none; 35px; font-size: 16px; padding: 0px 1rem; border-radius: "></fieldset>
<fieldset><legend style="max- 100%;">12. Are you a member of a political party?*</legend>

<input id="rblPoliticalMember_0" type="radio" name="rblPoliticalMember" value="Yes" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblPoliticalMember_0" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Yes</label>

<input id="rblPoliticalMember_1" type="radio" name="rblPoliticalMember" value="No" style="font-family: arial;"><label for="rblPoliticalMember_1" style="font-family: ABCSans; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px;">No</label>

</fieldset>
No doubt, but I don't know, some probably game that application to 'stack' the audience. But, I don't expect either side of the political spectrum would be exempt from that.

If anyone is feeling that the audience is always stacked, one way or the other, that might be more a reflection of their own position on the political spectrum. Most people think they are closer to the centre of politics than they actually are and as a result they interpret a normal distributions as being skewed away from them. That's human nature.

The conservative end of my family think the ABC is full of lefties engaged in a lefty plot against their values and beliefs. The progressive end of my family are very comfortable with the ABC and think of it as an unbiased and middle of the road broadcaster and a bulwark to the other media in Australia that is dominated by the right wing Murdoch press. That progressive end of my family are also more engaged with international sources of news and left wing analysis that they don't expect to get from the ABC. Each of us views the ABC through our own biases.

As for agenda, mine was the type world I will be passing on to my grandchildren as they pick up the baton in the decades to come. I've been working on it for the last 50yrs. That timeline has to be brought forward now in the light of events this summer. I was never in the Alarmed group, more in the 'what can be do about this' group, but I'm definitely now in a Frustrated group that is yet to be categorised.

Those of us that want change won't change the views of the 'genuine' Denial group. I say genuine, as that group should not to be confused with the broader coalition on the right of politics that has boxed themselves into a corner with the denialists, unlike in the UK.

PM launches UN Climate Summit in the UK - GOV.UK

Also, ignore the weasel words from those on the right who are now politically shackled to the denialists by their previous strategies. Public utterances like, "I'm happy to be convinced one way or another", and "I'm open on this matter" are from the denialist's playbook where politicians want to appear to support and be acceptable to a range of positions out there in the electorate, but are designed to keep them aligned with the denialists.

When the political tipping point comes here in Australia many on the conservative side will sound and behave more like the current UK conservatives. viz, from Boris Johnson, yesterday...

"There can be no greater responsibility than protecting our planet, and no mission that a Global Britain is prouder to serve. 2020 must be the year we turn the tide on global warming– it will be the year when we choose a cleaner, greener future for all."

... and then the denialist voice, at least here in politics, will become far more muted and marginalised. It was a unique set of circumstances that gave rise to the current circumstances that prevail here. It's far more fragile than it appears.

So, what to do if you you are inclined like me to try and counter the influence of the MM CC denialists?

We oldies could always join the younger generation in protest on the streets. Despite the disparaging commentary from some, they have made a difference. They are doing a good job, so I'm inclined to leave that to them.

Another way is to follow the money. The CCD's high profile spruikers are being very well funded by some very wealthy individuals, stink tanks and corporations. Unfortunately the CCD funders are becoming more devious and it's becoming much harder to trace the money now that is being funneled through multiple conduits to them, but calling it out if you can is a powerful weapon. We in Australia don't like 'cash for comments' and exposing it neutralises the messages.

As a starting point, look at this following list of who Brenden Demelle (from DeSmog) considers to be the top 10 climate deniers worldwide and, more particularly, their funding sources.

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

...and, if you don't know who the CCDs are here and overseas, the following database lists them. No surprise about the first name on the list.

Global Warming Disinformation Database | DeSmog

If any of those are your local member of parliament or a senator from your state you are entitled in our democratic system to ask if they have received funding from any of the known CCD funding sources.

It is amazing how short that full list is (less than 500 individuals and 220 organisations) for them to have had such a disproportionate influence and impact on our current lives and futures globally.

Rather than arguing with them I've been thinking about how I can do my little bit to legitimately neutralise their disproportionate influence.

[QUOTE=NeilS;2172591]
The conservative end of my family think the ABC is full of lefties engaged in a lefty plot against their values and beliefs. The progressive end of my family are very comfortable with the ABC and think of it as an unbiased and middle of the road broadcaster and a bulwark to the other media in Australia that is dominated by the right wing Murdoch press.
QUOTE]

Neil

I see exactly that in our family too. There are one or two members that are to the right of Attila the Hun.

Even today as I travelled into work I heard Minister Dutton, on the radio, attempting to perpetuate the lie that the fires were started by arson: One or two quite likely, but not the majority: Lightning strikes would be the primary culprit with the secondary cause being the accumulation of combustible material exacerbating the ease of combustion.

Regards
Paul

That list of CCDers is all male.

Any women hold these denialist views?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

That list of CCDers is all male.

Any women hold these denialist views?

---

Far fewer, certainly (have a look at the stats in that link you and I both posted today). It's just one more reason why we need a lot more women in Parliament. I'd be happy with about 1/3 men, and the rest women & others. TBH, men have had their time running the joint, and haven't done too good a job of it (which is primarily why we are in the current situation).

If a confirmed and self-confessed Evangelist like SmoKo can start to change his tune at least a wee bit then perhaps he might drag a few others with him. (ok, ok, it's only to suit a political end, and he certainly wouldn't have if the country hadn't turned on him BUT....it might be some kind of a result of a sort....I hope...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

I was never in the Alarmed group, more in the 'what can be do about this' group, but I'm definitely now in a Frustrated group that is yet to be categorised.

---

I have been alert but not alarmed for perhaps 2-3 years, but in the last 6-12 months I have been most definitely alarmed - just too many weather records being broken in a stupidly short period of time. I said to a couple of people back in October (after we had been on fire since mid-winter!) that I thought this coming summer might change a few minds. Maybe it has?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Public utterances like, "I'm happy to be convinced one way or another", and "I'm open on this matter" are from the denialist's playbook

---

Yes, but both statements are only missing one syllable each
"I'm unhappy to be convinced one way or another", and
"I'm not open on this matter"

Without going into Fitzhenry's publication in detail, it seems that he hasn't used the complete data set available. Data (collected by the former Maritime Service Board and its predecessors and successors, not the BoM, which simply archives the data) is available back to 1886. The data shown in the graph has been converted to a global height datum so it can be compared to other countries, but the relative heights are the same.
If you use the full data set, the increase in MSL is more noticeable.
Using monthly or even annual data to see trends is dangerous. it would be safer to use a (say) 10 year moving average. this tends to remove the 'noise' that Fitzhenry correctly mentions in his writing.

Attachment 468278

Attachment 468277

I have often considered that a rise in the ocean level is a good indicator of whether the planet is warming (not really in contention). Well, I had a few moments this evening doing sweet Fanny Adams and I did some sums based on 73% of the surface of the planet being covered with water and a radius of 6378Km. A 100mm rise in sea level would equate to approx 373,165,730,741,443Kl. That's quite a lot of salty wet stuff. It has to come from somewhere, but the ice caps are not melting so probably from all the increased rainfall.

Do let me know if I have made a nonsense of the figures. (I am sure you will).

Regads
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... but the ice caps are not melting so probably from all the increased rainfall.

---

They aren't? I thought there was considerable evidence to suggest they were (3 new islands discovered in the Arctic Sea, Greenland ice sheet diminishing, less sea ice for Polar Bears, and so on). I know that I read that the massive ice shelf detachment in the Antarctic a few months ago was not attributed to CC, but can't remember what it was attributed to.

Not to forget that the oceans also expand as they warm, without any additional water being added.


In any case, using the surface area figures shown in this search, I get:
510,072,000 km² total sa (dunno if that is assuming flat area or the area of the mountain sides as well - I've assumed flat)
70.8% is water so 361,132,000 km²
100mm is 0.0001 km
so 361,132,000 x 0.0001 = 36,113 km³ of water to get a 100mm rise
A kilolitre is a cubic metre
Therefore 36,113 km³ is multiplied by 1000 three times, so
36,113,000,000,000 kL aka 36.1 trillion kL

I think.... :shrug:

(that does not take into account the increased water surface area as the water encroaches into the landscape - that is anything from zero sa increase at steep sided locations like fjords, up to very large increases in sa in very flat places like the Florida Everglades, Mississippi & Amazon deltas etc - that would mean a higher number than shown above, or that the number shown would yield slightly less than a 100mm rise)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer himself gets in the water.

---

I think Clive has been out of his depth for quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

They aren't? I thought there was considerable evidence to suggest they were (3 new islands discovered in the Arctic Sea, Greenland ice sheet diminishing, less sea ice for Polar Bears, and so on). I know that I read that the massive ice shelf detachment in the Antarctic a few months ago was not attributed to CC, but can't remember what it was attributed to.

---

Ahem! That was tongue in cheek, but the computer I was using would not allow one of these:

:rolleyes:.

Of course, the ice caps are melting. The northern lump much more so than the southern. You got up too early this morning and before I was able to edit my post. So here it is in spades:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I found the sums easier if I converted the radius of the earth to metre. I used the formula for the area of sphere = 4 x Pi x R2. x .1 being the depth I was considering x73%. Some while back I heard the oceans on average have in fact increased by 120mm, but I don't recall the source so that would need some verification.

Regards
Paul

Is there any correlation between the melting Arctic and to a lesser degree the Antarctic and the recent large shift in the north magnetic pole (which is affected by the magma core of the earth) westwards.

I may have mentioned some of this previously somewhere else here....

Today (Thursday) I was chatting to my father on Telegram (he is a government conspiracy theorist :D ) and fascinated by archaeology, architecture, building, stone, etc. We were talking about two particular events (Mediterranean inundation and Aboriginal wisdoms).

Both seem EXACTLY RELEVANT to here. These are worth reading and all are worth adding to ones world views.

-- Tiddalik - Wikipedia
-- Ancient Aboriginal stories preserve history of a rise in sea level
-- The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean – Searching for independent evidence - ScienceDirect
-- Port Phillip Bay once high and dry › News in Science (ABC Science)

Look at these with an open mind. A 5 year old can see the issues we face.

Apologies for the third article, its really a scientific paper. It was discussed yesterday on Reddit on r/science.

I ESPECIALLY love the Tiddalik story. Beautiful. Someone needs to write an illustrated book on these.


For those who espouse SeA rIsE iS a MyTh By GrEeNiEs.... well, this chart may cause you some terminal cognitive dissonance.... (its from the second link)

Attachment 468288

Is there any connection between natural erosion into the sea, geological upheaval ( we are regularly reminded about tectonic plate movement, volcanoes creating new islands) the creation of man made land eg Singapore, the Spratly Islands (China's effort), I know its just a wee drop in the bucket but what has gone on over these thousands of years that we are not aware of as well as the gravitational effect of the moon (there is no data of thousands of years for that) and we are also told by the scientific community that the universe is constantly expanding so what effect does this have as well. Then there are the cities literally sinking under there own weight, where does the displaced earth mass go as a result of this?
I don't see too much of these factors incorporated in the debate anywhere.
Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

Quote:

---

Is there any correlation between the melting Arctic and to a lesser degree the Antarctic and the recent large shift in the north magnetic pole (which is affected by the magma core of the earth) westwards.

---

There appears to be a correlation, but that's not necessarily causation, although some have proposed mechanisms where one is driving the other. I think the jury is still out on it.
There seems to be more evidence of the melting polar ice caps effecting the earth's rotational axis, causing the position of "true" north to wander more than usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Is there any connection between natural erosion into the sea, geological upheaval ( we are regularly reminded about tectonic plate movement, volcanoes creating new islands) the creation of man made land eg Singapore, the Spratly Islands (China's effort), I know its just a wee drop in the bucket but what has gone on over these thousands of years that we are not aware of as well as the gravitational effect of the moon (there is no data of thousands of years for that) and we are also told by the scientific community that the universe is constantly expanding so what effect does this have as well. Then there are the cities literally sinking under there own weight, where does the displaced earth mass go as a result of this?
I don't see too much of these factors incorporated in the debate anywhere.
Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

---

The relationship between erosion, accretion, subduction and lifting are long established and reasonable estimates have been made. I would be very surprised if these have not been accounted for in models. The cities that are sinking under their own weight, e.g. Mexico City, are doing so because groundwater is being extracted from beneath them. Perhaps you can give examples of others that are "sinking under their own weight" for some other reason.
The behaviour of the moon - both its position and rotation - has been pretty confidently modelled for at least the last 4.5 million years. True, there's no directly measured data, but by using geology physics and other well understood science, fairly confident estimates can be made, and these are taken into account.
I'm not going to play "whack the rat" by chasing after data for every sceptic that can't be bothered to chase it down for himself. The scientific evidence around human-induced climate change is now so overwhelming that it's no longer good enough to just say "I'm not convinced." Either put up contrary evidence or sit down, shut up and watch the world go past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

---

It's not that they won't "look" at the facts - they just won't accept them - they are facts - truths. They just will not accept the proven bleeding obvious - and that is that all the crap (mainly CO & CO2) we have put into the atmosphere has put it badly out of balance, and as a result the planet is heating up.

In less time than you have been alive the CO2 content has increased by ~33%. Do you not see that that is seriously out of whack and hugely accelerated? (whether or not it may have increased at some tiny rate naturally). It's a greenhouse gas - increased by 1/3 - measured by instruments within crowie's lifetime, which means that by default he will be satisfied with those measurements.

What if the oxygen content of the atmosphere had increased by 1/3 from 21% to 28%? Do you think would change anything?

All the other things you have mentioned in your last couple of posts may or may not have something to do with it - I don't know. What I do know is that if they are in some way related they are NOTHING - miserably tiny, compared to what the increase in CO2 has done.

We MUST take CO2 out of the atmosphere rapidly and we MUST vastly reduce the amount we are putting into it. The first part of that would appear to be reasonably simple to do, although I doubt Jair Bolsinaro would be willing to help. The second part is substantially more complex and will take longer. It will mean a loss of jobs in some sectors and geographical locations. It will mean creation of jobs in other sectors and locations - that's just the way economies develop.

When the automobile replaced the horse & cart there were a great many people who were put out of work. Is it fair to say that a helluva lot more jobs were created worldwide (and probably much better jobs too)?

When computers came alive in the 70s everyone was scared of losing their jobs (and as a young person working in IT I had much first hand experience of seeing this fear). Guess what - a whole new industry was created around computers, creating tens if not hundreds of millions of MUCH better jobs than they replaced - hugely more financially rewarding too.

It will be the same with artificial intelligence, and it will be the same with energy creation. Filthy dirty, dangerous coal mining/oil drilling jobs will be replaced with other jobs, and so it will go on. Within 50 years we can look forward to no more catastrophic oil spills.




Despite my numerous requests, not a single nay-sayer, or "open-minded love to be convinced one way or the other" person has said what they are afraid of, or why we shouldn't act (with great haste I might add - because they have held us back for so long). Industry/commerce/corporate greed/superannuation funds/hedge funds and so on all want action on carbon emissions. WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS THE PROBLEM THEN? :doh:

In the absence of answers to that, one can only assume it is fear of the unknown, just as it was with the horse & cart and computers.

I have searched for, but cannot find a breakdown on deniers by decile age group (i.e. 70-80, 60-70......20-30). I believe that would be a fascinating read. I would bet things very precious to me that the younger the age the exponential drop-off of denying, and remember that they will be the age group that inherit a) the mess we are leaving, but more importantly b) the bill for cleaning it up, and yet they will still want to proceed with cleaning it up because they can see that the longer it is left the more difficult and expensive the clean-up will be.