Global Warming

[Rorschach]

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/what-t ... -tell-you/

The CSIRO decided to leave out some information about the state of our climate in their State of the Climate Report CSIRO.

2. Australia’s had extreme hot days for as long as we’ve been measuring the temperature. Charles Sturt recorded 53C in 1828 which seems fairly extreme. Thomas Mitchell did it too in 1845 and are many others (see the map below, check Trove, ask the BOM — no don’t ask the BOM). The records prior to 1910 seem to have gone down the memory hole, but if the BOM and CSIRO were trying to give Australians a true sense of the state of our climate perhaps Australians might like to know that extreme heat occurred even when CO2 levels were ideal.

The hottest temperatures here were recorded in the 1800′s.

1. In a nation with the most unpredictable rainfall in the world, it would be amazing if some regions did not show some change over short periods like 100 years.

* This short recent trend (since the 1970s) may not include the worst fire seasons we know of like those that occurred in 1939 or even in 1851. Real scientists would not draw any serious conclusions from a marker as vague as a “fire season”, nor over such a short period of time.

* Temperatures started rising in the 1700s — long before CO2 did. Even though 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after World War II, the rate of warming is no different to the era before that. The trend in the 1870s was the same as the peak trend in the 1980s. Even Phil Jones (Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) agrees both rates peaked at 0.16 C per decade.

1. The oceans appear to have warmed by two hundredths of a degree in the last 10 years. (If you believe that we can measure the 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of ocean to a hundredth of a degree, I have a giant working solar plant to sell you.)

* For most of the history of life on Earth CO2 levels were higher than they are today, sometimes 10 times higher. It was a lot hotter, except when it was a lot colder. For 500 million years nobody taxed carbon. Somehow life flourished and coral reefs existed.
* Sometimes asteroids dropped in — and then, boy, did that climate change. But that’s not the point, no one can tax an asteroid.

* Some parts of the ocean vary even more every day than the most pessimistic models predict the ocean will change in the next 100 years.
* It’s tricky to know what the pH of the world’s oceans are today (because of this natural variability) but it’s even harder to know that the pH was in 1750 since the pH scale and meters and what not, was only invented 150 years later. Instead our scientists estimate what the pH might have been then with models. Did we mention we are uncertain about the accuracy?

* Australian and New Zealand sea levels were rising faster in the 1930s and 1940s than they have in the last 40 years. (Isn’t that a bit relevant?)

* Sea levels all over the world started rising before 1800 when CO2 was still at “perfect” levels. Something was warming the planet back then. If climate modelers knew what it was, their models might work.

[DaS Energy]

* Sea levels all over the world started rising before 1800 when CO2 was still at “perfect” levels. Something was warming the planet back then. If climate modelers knew what it was, their models might work."

Carbon levels were already rising in the 1800's that may explain it! Not naming its God who selects the perfect Carbon level. May explain them being left out of the report!

[Rorschach]

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/media- ... 1300-days/

The bias is obvious in what they don’t say. Reporters are supposed to seek out and promote the most rational, well argued positions they can find. Instead they elevate themselves to defacto “science judges” and decide which scientists deserve to be heard. It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientist in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days — CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.”

As for our ABC and other progressive Networks...

[Rorschach]

A little reading for SN....

[Rorschach]

A little reading for SN....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[IQS.RLOW]

SN would treat reading Anthony Watts like a creationist reading Darwin.

Nope, that's not true. The dinosaur fossils were put there by God in the last 6000 years as a way to test our faith. We are all sinners. The one true path is through Flannery and the UN

[DaS Energy]

"SN would treat reading Anthony Watts like a creationist reading Darwin.'

Political Animal retort by any standard!

[boxy]

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/media- ... 1300-days/

The bias is obvious in what they don’t say. Reporters are supposed to seek out and promote the most rational, well argued positions they can find. Instead they elevate themselves to defacto “science judges” and decide which scientists deserve to be heard. It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientist in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days — CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.”

As for our ABC and other progressive Networks...

Science and rationalism isn't on your side. Just as they don't report on the DAS dynamo, they arn't obliged to report your woo-woo theories on something you obviously have no understanding of. You are not a climate scientist, you shouldn't demand equal footing with those who have dedicated their lives to rational examination of the issue.

[IQS.RLOW]

The science and rationalism is on the skeptic side. 17 years of no warming says that CAGW from CO2 is debunked. It is not happening.

You need to learn to live with facts and science and not cling to a belief system.

[Rorschach]

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/media- ... 1300-days/

The bias is obvious in what they don’t say. Reporters are supposed to seek out and promote the most rational, well argued positions they can find. Instead they elevate themselves to defacto “science judges” and decide which scientists deserve to be heard. It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientist in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days — CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.”

As for our ABC and other progressive Networks...

Science and rationalism isn't on your side. Just as they don't report on the DAS dynamo, they arn't obliged to report your woo-woo theories on something you obviously have no understanding of. You are not a climate scientist, you shouldn't demand equal footing with those who have dedicated their lives to rational examination of the issue.

Wassup poxy?

Your prognostications lead me to believe I'm much better informed and educated about a great many things than you.