Australia suffers most extreme warming

If he stopped constantly trying to be a smart-arse all the time, then maybe people would take him seriously. He raves on about having all these University Degrees, and when the debates become too real for him, he is the first to run-away and burry his head in the sand like an ostrich, or tries to deflect the conversation away from the debate by becoming a sniping old woman. I'm sorry, but to me that doens't represent intelligence.

 

Got anything to support that statement? Care to explain what you are refering to by "climate has changed more dramaticaly..". What do you mean by the word 'climate'?

 

LOLS!!!

You think your inferences have not been discussed ad nauseum amongst the deinialist community??

In fact they have been discussed so often they are one of the main myths commonly debunked - though i have to admit that I have not seen this particular one for a while
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.
And it is that rise that should have you bloody worried because that rise is the "feedback" or "tipping points" where if the warming effect gets large enough we will start seeing BIG temperature rises

 

And that is why I did not put too much effort into answering you. The answers ARE out there but I have had this "game" played on me before - load up a bog load of straw man and irrelevant questions and then, when I have done hours of research have someone come back with

"Duh" no Dat ain't rite!!

Any time you want a better answer from me - provide your own links and science

Nope - am only putting in equal effort - show me you can come up with something other than throw away "questions" and I will give it due consideration AND research as an answer

Since when did this apply to me? Bad journalism is bad journalism and comes from the pap the media hand out

The rest was simply a personal attack - I have deleted it as not worth answering

 

The use of skepticalscience.com is an automatic fail BB, it is a misleading site that should rename itself to warmistpropaganda.com It has been shown before on this very site that cook works with high priest Al Gore and that they use that site to promote your religion.
skepticalscience.com = facepalm.

 

So report them, it is still interesting that you continue to obfuscate the questions. First you tried to bandy about with enough crap to try and get away without answering them now you feign indignation. No credibility has been earned here today for any real debate of the AGW theory from your absence of answers and pretence of indignation.

 

Post 1: Bowerbird. Link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-1...arming/5090398

Post 2: m2catter. Agrees.

Post 3: Myself. Looking into my crystal ball I see that the deniers are preparing to attack.

Post 4: The attacks begin. Adultmale. Denier. Posts 2 links. Link 1: http://hardenup.org/umbraco/customCo...clone_1918.pdf
This is a loverly case study of the 1918 Mackay Cyclone. But I am at a loss to what it means, there is no mention of global warming, either pro or con, so what does it mean. Does it mean that because we had cyclones before, then there is no such thing as global warming.
Thank God, now all the OMGs can relax, because there was crime before motorcycles were even invented, so therefore OMGs can't be criminal.
His second link. http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/B/Bushfires 1967.htm
An historical link about the 1967 Tasmanian Bushfires, again no reference to global warming. IMHO, bushfires never have and never will be a factor in determining if global warming exists.

Post 5. politicalcentre. Not sure if he is pro or con,but the post is pro. He talks about the climate changing in the southeast United States.

Post 6. culldav. The usual insults. Bagging the UN. Once again schoolyard language, just what you would expect from a man of his intelligence."UN parasites" "You would have to be the "drop-kick" " LOL

Post 7. Me again, I told you so.

Post 8. Me again, not saying anything,just jibbing at adultmales attempt to build a strawman. a bit "tongue-in-cheek.

Post 9. Yours truly. Having a jib at culldav, why not, he does it all the time, couldn't debate a dog over a bowl of Pal.

Two posts floundered here

Post 10. efjay comes on board,maybe we will get a debate. Oh no, nothing again, just schoolyard insults.

Post 11> wow I said a lot of nothing I actually hoped that the denialists are found to be correct, still do, but don't think they are.

Post 12. axialturban. Agrees about global warming, and very well done too, but is against the way it is being handled and that's cool, at least he said something. Good work.

POst 13. efjay. Again,no debate, no nothing really.

another flounder

Well I won't go on, you get the picture.

 

Climate is climate! In the last couple of centuries it is comprehensively acknowledged that climate has increased but more so since the 80's. No one disputes this! What they do argue is that there has been cooling in the last 20 odd years as has been pointed out numerous times but this is due to solar effects and volcanoes etc that tend to disguise the real effect. The real indication supposedly is in the warming of the oceans. I don't think we can discount AGW as vehemently as some want to because arrangements to address the issue seem to be suspicious. I think authorities who are beginning to tackle climate in one way or another is evidence that there is real concern. Renewable energy is a win win situation and one that we as a nation should be embracing in economic terms as well. China is making billions from renewable energy while we sit back and argue the whole validity of climate change.

 

Sorry but just because you do not like the site does not make it a "fail"

Show me where they are wrong

Give some counter arguments to debunk the content

Then I might give some credence to what sounds suspiciously like sour grapes

 

Ad Hom is the last refuge of those with no substance to debate

Rule 1 - attack the post not the poster if you do not want an infraction

 

Fail TV, you haven't provided any support and you didn't answer either question.

 

Due to an unusually warm fall in the midwest United States there has been an outbreak of tonadoes. Over 80 tornadoes hit Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, and several other States. This is the worst outbreak of tornadoes to ever happen this late in the year for this part of the country. At least eight people dead and the city of Washington Illinois is no more.

This is the time of year in the midwest we used to get out the sleds and the ice skates.

 

Are you disputing my observation that sharp rises in temperature followed by long slow falls is a long running (at least 400 million years) repeatative natural cycle? That at present we are not on another sharp rise in that repeatative cycle?
Let's be honest, the facts are that rising and falling global temperatures are part of a perfectly natural cycle that has been running for hundreds of millions of years and we are presently on a temperature rise in that natural cycle. The only question is how much, if at all, is human activity contributing to, or affecting in some way this natural cycle? I don't think anyone has an answer, just theory and speculation.

 

But we have to be careful between a weather event and a climate adjustment. Lets say in 7 of the next 10 years we see similar extreme activity at the same time of year, then we are starting to consider a trend. If however something does not happen for another 20 years, chances are it is just one of those freak things

 

Yes and those rises and falls always have a reason. As I keep telling denialists (and hoping like heck it is not a new learning) "Climate, like underwear, does not change itself"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

 

Certain posters know the truth, they just seem to want something to argue about to keep themselves entertained!

 

So ability to answer means ad hom does it??? The points raised are very prevelent and the fact nothing was provided as answer is simple demonstrations of the complete lack of credibility of this entire debate. If it too hard to answer, obfuscate create subterfuge or if nothing else censor debate. Then pretend innocence. No wonder the entire AGW debate is clouded with actions such as these.

Pretence of empathy and a complete lack of ability to discuss the truth simply show that the debate is obviously controlled and detail is ignored, if it does not support the AGW theory. Nothing in this thread has been anything of credible source because the information provided in no way goes to the science of the entire theory.

One minute it is not regional but global, but now that does not support it is back to regional. One minute it is going to warm to such a degree it will never rain again, next it is that it will rain so much it will flood all the time. When questioned on these actions people try and put it off with comments such as “bad journalism” or “We know the science better than you”. Truth is, they are simply at loss to explain such crap.

Discussions of thermocline currents are interesting, as the reality of what is occurring goes directly against the claims of the religious of the AGW. That is that the current observations say that the warming effect shows the exact opposite of what is claimed. Something people should understand BEFORE proclaiming them as evidence of their religious fervour.

BUT to put it simply, people cannot answer questions, so they pretend everything and throw crap simply to try and get away with the fact they have little idea. As we see here.

So we are have seen the actions of people on this forum before and the credibility of those on here, Frankly, I do not see how they can be any lower from people who pretend such occupations and such empathy.

 

Finally getting a little bit of self reflections happening! Great!

 

These are questions you could answer... Don't be shy, I have not limited them to one person... Oh that is right, I have asked you before, at least you tried...

 

Yes...but...We have seen so many freak events worldwide recently it has to at least beg the question.

 

Yeh, no disputing that the weather has given us a few extremes lately, but is it unusual for say a period of 500 years? I am seem to be always hearing "once in 200 year event", or "once in 100 year event". If that is the case, then the weather extremes are not unusual, they can be expected evey few hundred years or so. We have only really been recording things like wind strength, temperature and flood heights for a couple of hundred years. As the graphs that Bowerbird so kindly provided show that the earths climate has always been in a state of flux.

 

How do we know it is a "one in 200 year event" - computer models and proxy data

Analysis of big weather events like typhoons are still in the infancy but something does seem to be lining up when the computer models predictions are validated by observation

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

 

Isn't that funny, complain I am attacking the poster then immediately set out and attack the poster. Some people really are a treat.

 

That's just the problem BB, the predictions are not being validated. About 2002 I think it was one of the most emminent climate scientist told England that they had seen their last snowfalls, since then they have had record snowfalls. Flim Flam Flannery about the same time told us we would have to start building desalination plants because we would never see enough rain to fill the dams again, since then we have had several major floods! And for the last 10 years or more we have seen a 'pause' in global warming. And far from more cyclones up here in Queensland as we were told would happen we have seen far fewer!
You are not going to be believable if you only ever reference an extremly biased AGW site.

 

There is a difference between advising and attacking. Now I have made an offer, an offer to assist you in finding the answers you seek

Will you accept that offer?