Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

Recommended Posts

heh.. that won't happen. Trusting the government = Stockholm syndrome. They are our captors, not servants, but it's for our own good remember. The science is settled, now it's a matter of deciding how best to sell this idea of wealth redistribution.

 

Everything is going according to plan, eh... I wonder whatever happened to the skepticism of the Liberal Party? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wealth redistribution: so you're all for selling australian soil so foreign companies and you not seeing a single cent of their multi billion dollar profits?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Two of our three utilities sold off shore...... what more can be said.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South pole contains over 90% of the worlds ice, It is growing ???? I still can't make sense of this!

Bacon, I've explained this before, but I'll try again.

The Antarctic has a thumping big continent - land - sitting on the South Pole. Therefore, unlike the situation at the North Pole, there is not a flow of water (which has a huge heat capacity) bringing warm water in from the tropics to erode the ice on the land. After all, water doesn't run uphill...

This means that the Antarctic (and its land-based ice) is able to stay colder around the Pole much more than the Arctic can. Point 1.

Meanwhile, with global warming, there is much more evaporation of water in the tropical and temperate regions of the world, and this vapour finds its way to the poles. Point 2.

Now, below 0 degrees celcius water vapour falls as snow, and because the Antarctic is still well below this temperature (even though it is nevertheless warming), there will be overall more snow falling out of the sky in many parts of the Antarctic. Result - there is an increase in snow cover in the Antarctic.

A similar thing will happen at the North Pole, but because the Arctic has no land-mass the water flowing in from the equatorial parts of the northern hemisphere melts the sea ice in summer more than it is replenished in winter. Result - there is a decrease in ice cover in the Arctic.

A time will come, if we don't act now, when the Antarctic becomes warm enough that it will experience a net decrease in snow as well. If it gets to that point in climate change, then it will be way too late to do anything to stop the warming behemoth... there will be so much commitment built in to the system through inertia and positive feed-backs that nothing humans could do would change that fact. As a result, human civilisation as we know it will be doomed to collapse - over and out, thanks for coming, turn the lights off when you leave.

If your genetics are really, really lucky your great, great, great, great... grand kids might have a subsistence lifestyle, but they definitely won't be living as we have done, or even as our grandparents did. Too many of the planet's ecosystem services will have gone belly up for a coherent global human society, as we know it, to persist.

In that case, it would be good to teach your kids to teach their kids how to kick seven colours of snot out of raiders coming to nick their spuds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Antarctic has a thumping big continent - land - sitting on the South Pole. Therefore, unlike the situation at the North Pole, there is not a flow of water (which has a huge heat capacity) bringing warm water in from the tropics to erode the ice on the land. After all, water doesn't run uphill...

This means that the Antarctic (and its land-based ice) is able to stay colder around the Pole much more than the Arctic can. Point 1.

Meanwhile, with global warming, there is much more evaporation of water in the tropical and temperate regions of the world, and this vapour finds its way to the poles. Point 2.

Now, below 0 degrees celcius water vapour falls as snow, and because the Antarctic is still well below this temperature (even though it is nevertheless warming), there will be overall more snow falling out of the sky in many parts of the Antarctic. Result - there is an increase in snow cover in the Antarctic.

A similar thing will happen at the North Pole, but because the Arctic has no land-mass the water flowing in from the equatorial parts of the northern hemisphere melts the sea ice in summer more than it is replenished in winter. Result - there is a decrease in ice cover in the Arctic.

 

Thats a plausible estimation for me. Basically my statement is still true, but you seem to be saying not for long? So if this infact is the direction we are heading and no amount of change will stop such an event I have a couple of questions I'd like your views on.

Q 1> So as things start to change due to our input, do you think places that have been known to be uninhabitable will become habitable?

Q 2> Is there enough uncertainty amongst the predictions of the most credible climate science for you to hypothesis on un predictable reactions to global temperature increase?

Edited by Slybacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacon.

If your "statement" was your puzzlement about the increase in Antarctic snow, then no, it was not true.

But yes, in geological terms, the increase will not be evidenced for long - on the scale of decades to a century, the situation will turn around - irreversibly.

In response to your questions:

A1) Some areas of the planet will become more habitable, but not enough nearly to replace what will be lost. This happens for two reasons - 1) the movement is toward the poles, and the polar regions have less area than the equatorial regions, and 2) soil composition, water regimes, and light regimes do not follow temperature changes.

A2) No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A2) No.

 

So basically you are stating that in your opinion the science is 100% settled, or you are unwilling to comment on any uncertainty amongst the science as this threatens your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

civilisations come and go, if you're alive when the shit hits the fan then, get ready to fight for your life. if not, well, enjoy your comfort while it lasts.

not saying do nothing, but the fate of humanity is for it to die, as all things.... nothing is permanent,,,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another couple (edit) of Question(S), aimed at WD but open to others for sure....

Q1> I have heard reports of glaciers in many places growing, how could this be?

Just one example-

And the Juneau Icefield, which covers 1,505 square miles (3,900 sq km) and is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere, is also growing.

According to Michael Zemp at the University of Zurich - one of the scientists that Al Gore likes to quote - "some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field."

Q2>What do you make of this fellow. I have read a few of his reports and they seem credible to me.

ut if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by

Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

Edited by Slybacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

one needs to observe long term trends, rather than short term fluctuations. consider a real world example: say, for example you save up $500 each month over 6 months. after 5 months you have $2500, but in the final month you spend $250 of the $500 you intake. you don't then say "well, as i've spent $250 over the last month my balance has decreased", no. your savings over all has increased, regardless of the short term fluctuation.

edit: to better reflect what i wish to say.

Edited by qualia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically you are stating that in your opinion the science is 100% settled, or you are unwilling to comment on any uncertainty amongst the science as this threatens your position?

Bacon, you should know by now that very few things in science are 100% "settled". Those things that are, are generally referred to as laws of Nature.

The exact playing out of future climate change cannot be predicted to minute detail, but the overall outcomes can be, and this because we do understand various laws of Nature.

You should also know by now the confidence intervals that various statistical analyses have placed on future changes in temperature, and in sea level, and in other parameters, based on the contingent of the scale of future carbon emissions. These confidence intervals can be followed at the 90%, 95%, 99%, or whatever, magnitude, and they constitute your answer. Except that they are nearly all conservative in their estimations, and thus the true capacity for confidence is probably greater than reported, for any magnitude of future change considered.

This whole thing of certainty is very curious, from a psychological perspective. Many people are almost obsessively fixated on the 1 in a 100 or 1 in 500 or whatever chance that some aspect of climate change might not happen, but they are more than willing to believe the 1 in a million chance that crop circles are made by little green men in flying saucers from the Pleaides.

:scratchhead:

But if you want my personal take on the science of anthropogenic global warming, then it's this - I am in no doubt. The science is solid, testable, tested, and coherent. The only people who think otherwise are those who either do not want it to be, or who don't know enough of the background to understand that it is.

Q1> I have heard reports of glaciers in many places growing, how could this be?

How? Did you not read my answer in the previous post?

Or in posts from months ago, where I have already explained this - both in terms of the fact that most glaciers are reducing in size, and those that aren't occur in areas where there is enhanced precipitation of warming-induced evaporation - as explained in the previous post.

Q2>What do you make of this fellow. I have read a few of his reports and they seem credible to me... Nils-Axel Mörner

Bacon, I have commented on Mörner previously. The short answer is that he's a nutcase.

You can look up my previous links (I'm not going to hunt them down again), or you could read Dale Husband's summary of some of the taking-down of Mörner. There's a little bit more at Little Green Footballs.

In fact, if one UTSE then one will eventually find cart-loads of material explaining why Nils-Axel Mörner is barking up the wrong tree, if not just barking mad. Of course, it requires a basic ability to understand some simple physics, and another to sort the tabloid pseudoscience from the real stuff, but it's there for the enquiring and discerning mind to find.

And it really isn't hard to to.

[Edit]

Edited by WoodDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ what is the best method to curb this outcome. Scientifically speaking, what technology should we concentrate our efforts on,

-Clean Coal (carbon Sequestration etc)

-Geo Thermal

-Wind

-Nuclear

-Solar

What is the best strategy moving forward?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days. Even if we were to do all we can to be "green" will it change the outcome?

Are these technologies "green enough" to make a dent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days. Even if we were to do all we can to be "green" will it change the outcome?

Are these technologies "green enough" to make a dent?

 

No sense in giving up before one has even started. The main impediment to progress is govt per usual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Mashey, a brilliant computer engineer whom I have had the privilege to cross paths with on several occasions, has given a talk on the machinery of funded and organised climate change denial.

It's a difficult subject to follow if one is not well familiar with the history, but there are some notes to help. If anyone has issue with Mashey's forensic investigation, he can be challenged directly at Deep Climate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Green fakes"

I watched this guy (Psychologist Geoff Beattie) with some interest a few days ago on telly talking about "GREEN FAKES"...and he believes there are a shit load of them (scientific term)...bet this place is just full of em...You know the kind of people I'm talking about..they bang on about how they want save the environment then jump in their tax payer funded commcar....the big V8 model....BANGHEAD2.gif

181796-sarah-hanson-young_thumb.jpg

It got me thinking.....I bet I am more environmentally friendly than most of you here...I would have a smaller carbon foot print than most and I do it without really trying. I grow most of my own everything...how many here do? I wonder how many would jump on a plane on a Friday night to go and catch a concert in another state? How many here can say they really live life as they say they do? Bet its a smaller number than most here would care to admit....It's all about the warm and fuzzies with most greenies....take a look at the Greens themselves....biggest hypocrite liars there has ever been....only they don't feel any of the pain associated with their inclinations to save the planet. Its the poor pricks like me....

Brown_1-420x0.jpg

Would that be "carbon pollution" I see coming out of Bob's chimney? Hypocrite cunt!

"These people are saying 'I'm very pro-environment,'" he said, "but we've got their IAT score, and something absolutely fascinating emerged. We found that a lot of people had an implicit attitude that leaned towards low carbon but we found a lot of people in whom [explicit and implicit attitudes] did not coincide."

Beattie estimates that between 40% and 50% of people have this conflict in their attitudes to sustainable consumption.

 

http://www.research-...4003119.article

I think being green for most is all in their heads.....actions speak way louder than words......

Edit:

Her Greens colleagues are also still using the Comcar chauffeur service, with leader Bob Brown leaving taxpayers with the biggest bill of $20,673 for the past 12 months.

Senator Hanson-Young, who accrued $17,260 in Comcar expenses, gave no response when asked if she thought the Greens should give up their cars in light of Senator Milne's comments.

 

Where are the hybrids? What the fuck is going on? HYPOCRITESana.gifana.gifana.gif

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/hypocritical-gas-guzzling-greens-stull-using-their-comcars/story-e6freuzr-1226090181869

Edited by hutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FEAR TACTICS.....

Fancy going out and deliberately scaring children.....It can't be good for their mental development that at such a young age they are taught fear.

Australian kids are living in climate of fear

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.

On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.

Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".

"As well as their terrible impact on people, animals and ecosystems they cause billions of dollars worth of damage to homes and other buildings," the material says.

Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".

 

Why is it all doomsday? What about the children? The looneys are now running the asylum and god help us all.....I suggest home schooling.

More here:

http://www.dailytele...r-1226091001997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch.

Why is it that, when challenged to give a scientific reason for disagreeing with climatological science, you choose instead to engage in a tabloid Gish gallop? The Murdoch press, which you rely upon so much, is especially prone to producing rags that misrepresent, distort, or outright lie about anything remotely related to global warming.

And it'd been pointed out to you more times than I care to count that the politics of a response to climate change is different to the science that underpins our knowledge of the subject itself. Your obsession with the Greens is, besides probably being slightly unhealthy, an exercise in the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, as well as one of tu quoque.

If you want to construct a defensible argument, the first thing you need to learn is to get your logic right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch.

I bet I am more environmentally friendly than most of you here...I would have a smaller carbon foot print than most and I do it without really trying.

On the matter of sustainable lifestyles, I've already openly spoken about my own impact.

The thing is, since then I have started a job that doesn't require a car or bus to travel to and from work, so my footprint will be even less. Why don't we see who's the most environmentally friendly now?

And Hutch, on the matter of Bob Brown's chimney, burning wood is not the same as burning coal. If you're too stupid to understand the difference then there's really no point in talking to you anymore...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch.

really no point in talking to you anymore...

 

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

computer-geek_48.jpg

You sent me a copy of the new work station you invented remember........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×