Sponsored By
ROCK HARDWARE
|
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
Author |
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular! |
|
|
10-Jun-2009 8:09:17 AM
|
Well, isn't this getting exciting. I've thought a few times that this was going to peter out, and then the thread fires up anew, so, we might need some ground rules to sort out what we're arguing about. There's a few points of order that have been raised, and they definitely need to be separated to make any sort of progress. As much as I'd like to watch Wendy and Swine go toe to toe over idealogical governance, it needs to be remembered that this has absolutely no baring on whether or not the AGW hypothesis is true or not. So, I suggest the following points, which for simplicity could be addressed by their number:
(1) The AGW hypothesis. This is about the science of Global Warming and nothing else. Discussion of whether or not it is happening, and how to prove otherwise.
(2) What to do if (1) is true. Hard to discuss if you don't believe in (1) in the first place. Those looking to derail the argument will often start out with a discussion of (2) until they get tired of it, then fall back to saying (1) isn't happening anyway, so why bother. This is badly unproductive and poor logic, and so should be avoided.
(3) Various ideological discussions around socialism and capitalism. There's some fun to be had around this one.
Right, back to the debate....
|
10-Jun-2009 8:19:43 AM
|
WRT my previous post, this whole post is on point (1)
On 9/06/2009 R James wrote:
>Evenbb - there's the differences between us.
> 1. We have a different view of what is required for consensus.
I'm not sure why you've bought up consensus. I've never mentioned it, and in fact don't care about it at all. I don't want consensus, and in fact actually think that seeking it is a total waste of time.
>2. I (and many others) don't accept that science is about consensus.
Nor do I. You're building a nice Straw Man here to attack. Classic of the genre.
>It's either proven, or still a theory, and should be treated as nothing more.
If that's your stance, you should read Eduardo's post on the Null Hypothesis, or maybe some reading on the Philosophy of science. Nothing is ever proven; a theory is put forward to be disproven, and remains true until it is disproven. This is a subtle but important difference, and my major concern of the anti-AGW theorists. No one has ever put forward one theory that can be credibly disproven. The sceptics jump around from "it's cooling" to "it's the sun" to "it's a global left wing conspiracy to seize power", without actually taking a stance that can be logically attacked. The AGW-h has plenty of theories around it to be disproven, and very little credible science has put a dent in it.
>3. I look at the data and make up my own mind. You believe someone's story
>based on them telling you it's supported by "consensus".
So you're a climate scientist then? Good work. That should make this all pretty simple for you. for starters, what data are you basing your 'making up of mind' on? Put it together, write something down, and let us have a look. Then, if I think your wrong, I will try and find some conflicting data. Does that make sense? Have a shot at it. I'm totally open to a theory against Global Warming, but nothing has been put forward.
Also, you're putting words in my mouth again. I don't care for consensus. Never have.
|
10-Jun-2009 8:29:22 AM
|
On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>On 9/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>>
>>have a look at the response to this year-on-record.htm">here
>>
>I stated it was US data and then you post a link trying to debunk it because
>it's US data. Please read a little more carefully next time.
>But if you think, that due to the fact that the evidence is not sound
>because it's geospecific, we could also ignore the recent decrease in Arctic
>ice (it's only covers 10% anyway) and focus on the overall global glacial
>trend. Some have shrunk, some have expanded and some have stayed the same.
>Overall the volume is the same as before this scare campaign started
Read the whole piece and follow the link to the adjusted data and it might seem more relevant. But just to save the effort, what it says is the variation in us data has zippo effect on the overall global mean rise in temperature. The link to the data (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070810_LightUpstairs.pdf) show the effect the variation had on us temperatures and there's a tiny change in the last few years but the overall trend is still a rise. It's also mentioned that for the US itself, 1934 had always been the equal hottest year on record and this was no new and exciting information afterall.
>>
>>Doesn't seem like that much really. Kevin just spent $42 billion in
>one
>>stimulus package. Exxon mobil made $40 billion net profit in 2007 and
>
>>45.5 in 2008 and they're just one company with a vested interest in disproving
>
>>AGW.
>>
>You really think $30 billion is not much money?
In terms of driving an international conspiracy over I've forgotten how many years it was quoted for, about 10? Well, no, not really.
>
>>I'd hardly say we are moving to big govt as a response to climate change.
>
>
>And neither did I. I said it was "a great way to advance a political agenda".
>
>
>> being one of those leftist hippies
>>that favours govt and regulation over the market, I'd say it'd be far
>more
>>effective to just put our foot down about it instead of pussy footing
>with
>>bloody markets.
>>
>Sorry, but I did have a bit of a giggle over this one. A hippy advocating
>National Socialism. That was tried towards the middle of last century,
>and we all know where that got us.
Giggle away. I think we all know I am hardly a nazi. I continued to be exceptionally dubious at leaving vital action to the vagaries of the free market, modelling of which I would suggest is far less reliable than that of modelling climate change.
>>
>>Yep, there are lots of problems in the world. Addressing climate change
>
>>at least addresses many of them at once,
>
>Reality is it will be detrimental to the developing world (Evanbb agrees
>with this).
Sorry, I missed that moment ...
>
>> People are being effected by cc now with extreme weather events
>
>Rubbish, 1 example please.
Um, how many years of drought have we had out here now ... 12 -13? Recently declared "unprecented" by the DPI.
Deaths from heat waves - Europe in 2003, here this year, just of the top of my head
What about floods? The odd cyclone? Try putting "climate refugees" into a search engine. Then we could dissect that study that said 315000 or so people were dying from it and see what the realistic figure is. There may be problems with the study, but would it really reduce to 0?
>
>>and conditions dependant diseases.
>
>If you are referring to mosquito born disease, you'll find that has to
>do with increased population density and habitat creation due to deforestation.
Sure, that doesn't help, but also because the conditions for their survival spread further. We have dengue fever in cairns this year.
>
>
>>And who said it had to be one of the other?
>
>I prefer to deal with reality before abstract.
>
>>Are we incapable of helping people now and addressing the future?
>>>
>
>It seams so.
Well maybe this is the issue to be addressing - why are humans such selfish, egocentric, unthinking bastards that we can't look out for people, the environment and the future?
|
10-Jun-2009 8:39:13 AM
|
This thread is actually quite funny. It's a microcosm of the debate that has happened in
the scientific community - only it happened there about 25 years ago and most boffins
have long since moved on to trying to figure out how to live with climate change given
that the broader community doesn't seem to want to stop it. But I'll take up the troll and
wade into it anyway.
>But if you think, that due to the fact that the evidence is not sound because it's
>geospecific, we could also ignore the recent decrease in Arctic ice (it's only covers
>10% anyway) and focus on the overall global glacial trend. Some have shrunk, some
>have expanded and some have stayed the same. Overall the volume is the same as
>before this scare campaign started
There's a host of problems with this statement particlualry comparing sea ice with
glaciers, as changes in these are driven by different factors. But the real clanger is that
idea that the overall global ice volume is remaining steady. this is a serious furphy, and
shows a distinct lack of understanding of just what is actually happening around the
world and also what causes changes the mass of a glacier (it's a balance of ice in -
accumulation from snowfall - and ice out - surface melt, iceberg calving etc).
Most of the small, alpine glaciers around the world are shrinking dramatically. The alps,
himalaya, african high mountains, northern andes, the rockies to name but a few. These
guys recieve small amounts of snowfall each hear and are thus quite sensitive to
changes in temperature.
There are a few glaciers in the sub-arcitic lattitudes that are undergoing expansion. e.g.
the fox and tasman on the west coast of NZ, and a few in patagonia and some in
maritime alaska. These glaciers are in relatively warm areas, but are there because they
are fed by huge amounts of snowfall where the westerly trade winds are forced up over
mountain ranges. Hence, they are more sensitive to changes in accumulation. so their
advance is acutally further evidence for an overall warming of the climate, as a warmer
world means more rapid atmospheric circluation, which means more rain/snowfall in
these areas.
Polar ice si a bit more complicated, but also points to an overall trend of ice loss in
most areas. In areas where sea ice is being lost, such as around the antarctic
peninsula, the dramatic increase in warming due to a loss of albedo has vastly
overwhelmed the small increase in accumulation and ice loss there is scarily fast. Much
faster than the glacier modelling community (including those involved in the coming up
with the IPCC predictions - errors there go both ways) had predicted. In the areas just
toward the poles the change is less obvious - temperatures have increased but it's been
offset by an increase in precipitation as their moisture sources are now much closer
(you don't get much evaporation from a frozen sea). So again, the response is
consistent with the notion of a 'global warming'.
|
10-Jun-2009 8:44:46 AM
|
This looks like more (1), but there's some others in here....
On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>I stated it was US data and then you post a link trying to debunk it because
>it's US data. Please read a little more carefully next time.
I think you're being a little outrageous here, and that Wendy's reference was entirely appropriate. SWOTT stated "I had heard that nine of the ten warmest years recorded in the US lower 48 states since 1880 have occurred since 1995, with the hottest being 1998. Well, that also has been shown to be wrong." Then Wendy found a paper discussing this piece of evidence. Yes McKintyre did find fault in the NASA temperature data, but the point is that this has a small effect on Global Averages. So what if 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US? It does not disprove the AGW hypothesis.
>But if you think, that due to the fact that the evidence is not sound
>because it's geospecific, we could also ignore the recent decrease in Arctic
>ice (it's only covers 10% anyway) and focus on the overall global glacial
>trend. Some have shrunk, some have expanded and some have stayed the same.
>Overall the volume is the same as before this scare campaign started
You're showing your cards a little here SWOTT, with the emotive description of the AGW. "Scare campaign" eh? You make a genuine point that I have not heard before, and I'd like to know more. Do you have a reference that states that overall glacial volume is the same? I would consider that a pretty interesting piece of evidence for your cause.
Until you find something, here's a paper from the UN Environment Program on the status of worldwide glaciers. It's really big.
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/glaciers.pdf
>Sorry, but I did have a bit of a giggle over this one. A hippy advocating
>National Socialism. That was tried towards the middle of last century,
>and we all know where that got us.
Now, this is (3), and I disagree with your assessment of what constitutes 'trying National Socialism'. First of all, the system of Capitalism that we're currently using is not a great example of what Adam Smith envisaged all those years ago. There's lots of market distortions with tariffs and general protectionism. The US have had a big push back towards Nat Socialism in the last 18 months, with George W nationalising the big lenders, then bailing out the auto manufacturers. Then Obama went even further and propped up the auto industry completely. Similar stories have played out in Australia and Europe, with the failure of markets globally, due to what some would argue was a failure of capitalism. Others would argue that the market wasn't free enough in the first place. Hard for me to say either way.
>Reality is it will be detrimental to the developing world (Evanbb agrees
>with this).
Back to (1) I think. What is IT though? Climate Change will most likely be more detrimental to the developing world than the developed. I agree with that. Nothing further.
|
10-Jun-2009 2:00:35 PM
|
Yes, it's true.I know plenty of 60+yo climbers, though I admit it's not my main sport (karate). I also surf, windsurf, ski, ice skate etc. Don't think people need be limited by age.
|
10-Jun-2009 2:11:33 PM
|
On 9/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
> there is more than enough scientific consensus
>
evenbb - You claim you never mentioned consensus? Your post 6/9/09 stated "there is more than enough scientific consensus" or am I seeing things that aren't there?
|
10-Jun-2009 2:20:19 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 R James wrote:
>On 9/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>> there is more than enough scientific consensus
>evenbb - You claim you never mentioned consensus? Your post 6/9/09 stated
>"there is more than enough scientific consensus" or am I seeing things
>that aren't there?
Oh for Christ's sake, we're reduced to semantics now? If so, can you please start spelling my name correctly? That's twice now.
My point is that I don't think 100% consensus is necessary, nor useful. The concept of consensus is often trotted out by sceptics looking to create doubt. I'm editting that old post to remove the word.
Focus on the real issues please R James, and stop this petty point scoring.
|
10-Jun-2009 2:33:31 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>
>So you're a climate scientist then? Good work. That should make this all
>pretty simple for you. for starters, what data are you basing your 'making
>up of mind' on? Put it together, write something down, and let us have
>a look.
Interesting - perhaps you can show me where I claimed to be a climate scientist. I'm an engineer.
The data I study on a regular basis (some monthly, some daily) are :
1. the four main temperature records - Hadley (Hadcrut), RSS, GISS and UAH.
2. Arctic and Antarctic ice area.
3. CO2 levels
4. Ocean level, particularly Fort Denison, but also globally. Fort Denison is the only one I statistically analyse myself.
5. Solar activity.
Study basically means plots, statistical analysis etc.
In addition I get a global report each day of every internet publication on global warming and climate change. I study any new technical reports that become publicly available that I believe are useful to my knowledge - obviously not all, and few in full detail due to the huge number. I'm happy to provide the links for any of this.
All this still leaves my with the questions :
1. Why do we believe computer models that have failed to match real data?
2. I can't find any evidence to support the hypothesis that increased CO2 can significantly effect our climate.
3. Looking at long term data (2,000 years up to 450,000 years) there's no evidence that our current climate trends are unusual. A lot of focus is put on the last 160 years for no good reason, other than that's the span of direct temperature measurement (sometimes called "recorded history". What specifically is unusual about our current climate that hasn't happened before many times?
|
10-Jun-2009 2:50:44 PM
|
hopefully not a railway engineer !!! as their opinions are not worthy of consideration but that may also extend to other engineers maybe you ought to check with TonyB as to whether you are entitled or qualified to offer a view .
|
10-Jun-2009 4:05:01 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 R James wrote:
>Interesting - perhaps you can show me where I claimed to be a climate
>scientist. I'm an engineer.
Terrific. Me too, among other things. What I'm getting at is that you're doing your own analysis, and basing the future of the climate on it. I'd be very interested to hear what you've got.
>
>All this still leaves my with the questions :
>1. Why do we believe computer models that have failed to match real data?
Which computer models? As I've stated more than once, there is a pretty big body of observational data that points to increased average tempuratures world wide.
>2. I can't find any evidence to support the hypothesis that increased
>CO2 can significantly effect our climate.
Can? Interesting choice of words. You don't give any credit to the science of the IPCC because you're not convinced that CO2 can store energy? So would you like evidence that this is possible? Anyway, try this resource to fill your knowledge gaps:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.1.html
The link between CO2 and it's ability to store energy has been known for a very long time. Any compound with those covalent bonds will store bucketloads of energy.
>3. Looking at long term data (2,000 years up to 450,000 years) there's
>no evidence that our current climate trends are unusual. A lot of focus
>is put on the last 160 years for no good reason, other than that's the
>span of direct temperature measurement (sometimes called "recorded history".
>What specifically is unusual about our current climate that hasn't happened
>before many times?
Well, here's a good start for you. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html This discusses this point in pretty good detail.
All of this is moot though, and not really following the scientific procedure. The IPCC have collected a lot of science, put it together, and made some probability assessments. It is up to you to disprove them; not for you to sit there and demand proof. So get to it! Write a paper, get your science out there into the realm of peer review. It would be terrific news if you could overturn the whole AGW disaster, but you'd need some pretty convincing evidence. I for one would be extremely happy to find out we'd been wrong all along.
|
10-Jun-2009 4:56:55 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 lacto wrote:
>hopefully not a railway engineer !!! as their opinions are not worthy of
>consideration
Not railway - chemical. I also now question railway engineers. When one well known one recently stated that global warming was happening faster than expected, when it was cooling for the past 10 years, I had to wonder.
|
10-Jun-2009 5:16:53 PM
|
Question for tony/rjames:
if you have studied:
> long term data (2,000 years up to 450,000 years) there's no evidence that our current climate trends
>are unusual. A lot of focus is put on the last 160 years for no good reason, other than that's the span
>of direct temperature measurement (sometimes called "recorded history". What specifically is
>unusual about our current climate that hasn't happened before many times?
you'll know that there's been some pretty big climate shifts during this period on a 100,000 year cycle -
it's the dominant story over the last million years or so, and has been found in so many places (ocean
temperatures, ice sheet changes, vegetation shifts, river lake expansions and contractions, the list
goes on). Milankovich (i.e. orbital) forcing on this timescale is pretty piddly when compared to these
changes - the main periodicity for those cycles is 40,000 years and 21,000 years. Changes in other
factors, such as albedo (i.e snow and ice reflecting more sunlight), or ocean currents are important
part of the story, but none of these are enough, even in concert. The answer is that you can only
explain these shifts by the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
And you should also know what is unusual about where we are going with respect to CO2
concentrations, and the likely climate that will follow. We haven't seen current atmospheric CO2
concentrations, and thus climate for at least a million years. i.e. for a period longer than our species
has been recognizable as us.
|
10-Jun-2009 5:39:28 PM
|
Just to keep the debate on track and correct a few misconcpetions, I think you might be demolishing a few straw man arguments of your own Evan
On 10/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>All this still leaves my with the questions :
>>1. Why do we believe computer models that have failed to match real data?
>Which computer models? As I've stated more than once, there is a pretty
>big body of observational data that points to increased average tempuratures
>world wide.
I don't think that anyone doubts that temperatures have increased, the skeptics question is over how significant these increases are historically and what is causing them. CO2/methane verses solar activity/natural variation/recovery from little ice age.
>>2. I can't find any evidence to support the hypothesis that increased
>>CO2 can significantly effect our climate.
>Can? Interesting choice of words. You don't give any credit to the science
>of the IPCC because you're not convinced that CO2 can store energy? So
>would you like evidence that this is possible? Anyway, try this resource
>to fill your knowledge gaps:
>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.1.html
>
>The link between CO2 and it's ability to store energy has been known for
>a very long time. Any compound with those covalent bonds will store bucketloads
>of energy.
Again, no one doubts that CO2 stores energy/effect temperature/is a greenhouse gas, the keyword above is 'significantly'. The skeptics hypothesis is that CO2 has only a minor contribution to temperature changes compare to other influences.
What would be cool would be some sort of deadline to end the debate. So the last 10 years is too short to base any conclusions on. How long? How about 2020, is that long enough? Then if the temperature hasn't risen to the dangerous levels predicted by the IPCC/Al Gore we can stop panicking, or if it has you can burn all the skeptics on a stake. Maybe the betting agencies could put odds on it so we can a gamble on the outcome. I reckon the skeptics would get some really good odds at the moment and tony and R James could make some decent cash if they're right.
|
10-Jun-2009 9:04:14 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 harold wrote:
>I don't think that anyone doubts that temperatures have increased, the
>skeptics question is over how significant these increases are historically
>and what is causing them. CO2/methane verses solar activity/natural variation/recovery
>from little ice age.
>>The link between CO2 and it's ability to store energy has been known
>for
>>a very long time. Any compound with those covalent bonds will store bucketloads
>>of energy.
>Again, no one doubts that CO2 stores energy/effect temperature/is a greenhouse
>gas, the keyword above is 'significantly'. The skeptics hypothesis is
>that CO2 has only a minor contribution to temperature changes compare to
>other influences.
>
>What would be cool would be some sort of deadline to end the debate.
>So the last 10 years is too short to base any conclusions on. How long?
>How about 2020, is that long enough?
You're exactly right. There has been warming for the past 160 years, but none for the past 10 years. I don't dispute that, although the reliability of surface measuring stations, leaves much to be desired (89% in the USA don't meet basic location specifications). Just because CO2 has also increased in this period (which is expected based on ocean solubility), there's no reason to believe CO2 has caused the increase - more the other way around.
For climate trends, it's generally accepted that 30 years is the minimum for proving any trend. Therefore, the current cooling or stability needs to go until about 2028 until it can be regarded as a climate trend. However, after 10 years of no warming, despite increasing CO2, we know that there are stronger forces at work. It certainly doesn't create confidence that the politicians are on the right track with this.
|
10-Jun-2009 9:20:09 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 R James wrote:
>It certainly doesn't create confidence that the politicians are on the right track with this.
Given the shortness of political election cycles I'd prefer to leave this one with the scientists, if some objection regarding a political response is your actual concern please come clean.
|
10-Jun-2009 9:41:51 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 wombly wrote:
>Question for tony/rjames:
>
>if you have studied:
>
>> long term data (2,000 years up to 450,000 years) there's no evidence
>that our current climate trends
>>are unusual. A lot of focus is put on the last 160 years for no good
>reason, other than that's the span
>>of direct temperature measurement (sometimes called "recorded history".
>What specifically is
>>unusual about our current climate that hasn't happened before many times?
>
>you'll know that there's been some pretty big climate shifts during this
>period on a 100,000 year cycle -
>it's the dominant story over the last million years or so, and has been
>found in so many places (ocean
>temperatures, ice sheet changes, vegetation shifts, river lake expansions
>and contractions, the list
>goes on). Milankovich (i.e. orbital) forcing on this timescale is pretty
>piddly when compared to these
>changes - the main periodicity for those cycles is 40,000 years and 21,000
>years.
Yes, I'm very aware of these cycles. In fact, if history repeats itself as it has for the past five cycles, we're due for a big temperature drop of about 8 degC. This could start any time, but will take a few thousand years to really make much impact
Changes in other
>factors, such as albedo (i.e snow and ice reflecting more sunlight), or
>ocean currents are important
>part of the story, but none of these are enough, even in concert. The
>answer is that you can only
>explain these shifts by the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
A big NO!!! to that. Why, of all things, would you blame CO2? Sure it's one of hundreds of possibilities. Why not blame changes in solar activity, cloud formation, ocean currents, cosmic radiation, gravitational changes, humidity changes (most significant greenhouse gas), underwater volcanoes (about 5,000 of them), tectonic plate shifts (which effects ocean currents), random variation, - the list goes on and on.
I express surprise at CO2 because it's the most studied possible cause at a cost of billions of dollars, and still has no real data to back it up.
As for high CO2 levels, there is a lot of mixed research on past levels. Ice cores indicate that past levels were lower. However, there is much concern that ice core samples underestimate levels from the past. There's really no way to know for sure. Other sources indicate that levels have been much higher in the past. I have no idea which is correct. Personally, I expect CO2 levels to start to level out in the next few years, particularly of global cooling continues (which it may not do - further warming wouldn't be unusual, though, except for the IPCC, cooling seems to be the expectation from many scientists).
|
10-Jun-2009 10:54:30 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Do you have a reference that states
>that overall glacial volume is the same? I would consider that a pretty
>interesting piece of evidence for your cause.
Braithwaite, R.J. 2002. Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring. Progress in Physical Geography 26: 76-95.
|
10-Jun-2009 11:17:45 PM
|
On 10/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>
>Um, how many years of drought have we had out here now ... 12 -13? Recently
>declared "unprecented" by the DPI.
Are you refering to the whole of Australia, the Globe, your back yard?
>
>Deaths from heat waves - Europe in 2003, here this year, just of the top
>of my head
Yet, the record for the longest heat wave in the world is generally accepted to have been set at Marble Bar in Australia, where from October 31, 1923 to April 7, 1924 the temperature broke the 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) benchmark, setting the heat wave record at 160 days.
>
>What about floods? The odd cyclone?
Cyclonic weather activity has been declining for a number of decades now and it is actually at a 30 yr low.
>Try putting "climate refugees" into a search engine.
By this I assume you are making a reference to Bangladesh. Try putting Deforestation and flooding into a search engine and see what you get. AGW is the scapegoat governments use for inaction.
>Then we could dissect that study that said 315000 or
>so people were dying from it and see what the realistic figure is.
We could, but like the rest of your dogma I don't think any of it would stand up.
>We have dengue fever in cairns this year.
Hardly surprising considering the Dengue Mosquito is native to Qld
Queensland has a history of dengue epidemics dating back to 1879, most of which occurred in north Queensland. Thirteen notable dengue epidemics have occurred in Queensland since 1885. The first fatality attributed to classical dengue occurred in Charters Towers in 1885 and the first fatality attributed to Dengue haemorrhagic fever occurred in the same town during the 1897 epidemic, when Hare (1898) recorded 60 fatalities.
Maybe do a little bit of research next time instead of spewing forth the same old rhetoric.
Next you'll be telling me polar bears are facing extinction.
|
11-Jun-2009 8:25:01 AM
|
>On 10/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>
>Um, how many years of drought have we had out here now ... 12 -13? Recently
>declared "unprecented" by the DPI.
>Are you refering to the whole of Australia, the Globe, your back yard?
Well, ah, duh, “out here” might suggest my backyard? I quoted the DPI on it a few pages back
>
>Deaths from heat waves - Europe in 2003, here this year, just of the top
>of my head
>Yet, the record for the longest heat wave in the world is generally accepted to have been set at Marble Bar in Australia, where from October 31, 1923 to April 7, 1924 the temperature broke the 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) benchmark, setting the heat wave record at 160 days.
That doesn’t change the fact that they are increasing in frequency and intensity. This is what our govt has to say on observed changes so far:
Observed changes
Temperature
Australian average temperatures have increased 0.9°C since 1950, with significant regional variations. The frequency of hot days and nights has increased and the frequency of cold days and nights has declined.
Rainfall
Since 1950, most of eastern and south-western Australia has experienced substantial rainfall declines. Across New South Wales and Queensland these rainfall trends partly reflect a very wet period around the 1950s, though recent years have been unusually dry. In contrast, north-west Australia has become wetter over this period, mostly during summer.
From 1950 to 2005, extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency has increased in north-western and central Australia and over the western tablelands of New South Wales, but decreased in the south-east and south-west and along the central east coast.
Oceans
Global sea levels rose by about 17 cm during the 20th century, and by around 10 cm from 1920-2000 at the Australian coastal sites monitored. Substantial warming has also occurred in the three oceans surrounding Australia, particularly off the south-east coast and in the Indian Ocean.
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/pastchange.php
On our recent heat wave, quotes from Time mag:
"We're in uncharted waters, unprecedented condition. It's the hottest week since records began," the Premier (Governor) of Victoria John Brumby told reporters as he toured bushfire ravaged areas over the weekend.
and
In Adelaide, South Australia's capital, 1.1 million inhabitants baked as the capital recorded its hottest day in 70 years and more than 26 sudden deaths were reported by the South Australian ambulance service. At one point the mercury tipped 114 Fahrenheit (45.7 C.). The night brought little respite with temperatures dropping to 93 F. (33.9 C.)�the hottest night in the city on record.
>What about floods? The odd cyclone?
Our govt also seem to think we have more localized extreme rainfall events and the oceans are rising (see above).
>Cyclonic weather activity has been declining for a number of decades now and it is actually at a 30 yr low.
You have half a point here – what I was actually thinking about were events in the states/carribean, which have been increasing, but other areas are experiencing less. However, those increases are attributed to ocean warming which is attributed to climate change
|
|
There are 818 messages in this topic.
|
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints
|
|