cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

406 posts in this topic

So overall not change in size?

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017

Quote

... The largest increase—a doubling of the rate of ice loss—occurred between the periods 2002–2007 and 2007–2012 (Table 1). Overall, the WAIS accounts for the vast majority of ice-mass losses from Antarctica. At the APIS, rates of ice-mass loss since the early 2000s are notably higher than during the previous decade, consistent with observations of surface lowering71,73 and increased ice flow in southerly glacier catchments84. The approximate state of balance of the wider EAIS suggests that the reported dynamic thinning of the Totten and Cook glaciers85,86 has been offset by accumulation gains elsewhere87.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cost to the general public of Climate change policy? Do you think anything good came out of it?

I sort of figure that there have been a bunch of technical advances which are going to be super useful.

Perhaps you have a similar opinion to mine regarding warfare. I hate it and think we should knock it off as insanely wasteful of resources, lives and planetary stability but I can't deny some pretty useful advances are pretty much a direct result of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tor said:

What is the cost to the general public of Climate change policy? Do you think anything good came out of it?

I sort of figure that there have been a bunch of technical advances which are going to be super useful.

Perhaps you have a similar opinion to mine regarding warfare. I hate it and think we should knock it off as insanely wasteful of resources, lives and planetary stability but I can't deny some pretty useful advances are pretty much a direct result of it.

Defence spending is never an option as you never know what the other side will do. You only have to read world history to know that.

What has been the cost of moving from the cheap, reliable fossil fuels to renewables - $squillions around the world. All the carbon limitations have forced industry & consumers to bear expensive changes to support what is an unreliable technology that is not as cost efficient.

I'm totally agnostic as to how power is generated. I'd be quite happy for all subsidies & limitations to be removed and let the cheapest and reliable energy source(s) win.

What could be fairer than that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another climate change prediction from 2004 that will be declared as false.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Quote

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

So $squillions spent on this BS predictions and we have people still believing the unadulterated BS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outback NT Rural Report

Quote

...Today marks a record breaking 158 days without rain in Alice Springs...

I'll bet on Indigo's forecast over the globull warming one:

Quote

As I have posted many times before, the sunspots still aren't at the bottom yet, the drought has no chance of finishing anytime soon. It's going to be a tough 4 years for 90% of the country. Most rain will be coastal. ..

 

wolfjmms[1].png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 7:31 PM, tor said:

You two are funny. I am deliberately being mean here so neither party can claim I am biased.

Cobran wants to use global warming to show that politicians / scientists / anyone claiming to know better than him are corrupt arseholes beneath him.

Clown wants to use global warming to show that people with beliefs that can't be swayed by his better argument are idiots beneath him.

The actual argument, to me, seems to be about how we progress society. If they were sci fi readers Cobran I am guessing would be an Asimov/Heinlein fan and Clown would be a charles stross fan (but secretly prefer Rajaniemi).

Arguing about the thing abstractly related to your world views seems kind of pointless when you could just argue about how individuality should be encouraged or expressed.

I'll concede that there is a certain amount of hubris creeping into my arguments. ^_^

It's been a long time that I've been arguing about global warming online. GHPC was 2007? I reckon the hubris has arisen from frustration that this country can't arrive at a consistent policy. That combined with a few vodkas when I post. I don't want to come across like I think cobran is beneath me though. Apologies to cobran if that's how I come across. I don't doubt the he feels as strongly about his views as I do mine. I realised a while back that I won't convince cobran. The best I can hope for is that other undecided readers might find my logic more convincing. Perhaps a forlorn hope in the post truth world.

There is a certain disadvantage in arguing based on science. I can't claim absolute certainty as there is always a level of uncertainty in science. 

I always figured that once we had reached the age of enlightenment that we wouldn't go backwards. Society would be progressed based on evidence rather than ideology. Not turning out like I thought at the moment. I'm a Neal Stephenson fan. Sure I've played a lot of D&D and my balls didn't drop until I was 25 :blush: but most of my reading is non-fiction. I'll have to check out Stross and Rajaniemi. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, staringclown said:

...Society would be progressed based on evidence rather than ideology...

You will find similar was said about the coming ice age and eugenics that I mentioned earlier. The Nazis formed an entire ideology around eugenics - all scientific tests show that the germanic race is superior.

Climate change will go down as yet another fine example of mass pyschology and how the sheeple can be manipulated. I'd be surprised if within 10 years 'climate change' doesn't  quietly disappear to save face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nuclear ICBM capable navy plus militia-trained population like Switzerland would probably avoid threat of invasion and significantly reduce military spending in Australia.

But not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

A nuclear ICBM capable navy plus militia-trained population like Switzerland would probably avoid threat of invasion and significantly reduce military spending in Australia.

But not going to happen.

That also classifies as defence spending. Instead of those expensive customised French subs, it probably would have been cheaper to wait until drone subs are available (with nuclear warheads) or just buy the fit for purpose nuclear subs from the US.

Also totally agree - that approach is not going to happen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

A nuclear ICBM capable navy plus militia-trained population like Switzerland would probably avoid threat of invasion and significantly reduce military spending in Australia.

But not going to happen.

 

I agree mr m.

Conscription hasn’t worked here forever.

Plus nuclear capability would cost 4% of GDP. Double the current spend. I thought you chaps were all about small government? The cost of nukes would put the cost of renewables in the shade.

 

The one, conclusive reason why Australia won't go nuclear

Quote

Currently, we spend about $35 billion a year on defence ($95 million a day). We haven’t spent more than two percent of GDP on the forces since the ’70’s (when, ironically, the government’s ‘take’ of the economy was more like 20 percent. Today it’s surged beyond 24 percent, but the extra money goes on health and support.). The experts conservatively assess the additional cost of developing a nuclear deterrent would be an extra $15 billion a year, growing to $30 billion for a fully operational force. This effectively doubles our defence budget.

Where’s the money coming from? Schools? Hospitals? Defence pensions, pay and allowances?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, staringclown said:

 

I agree mr m.

Conscription hasn’t worked here forever.

Plus nuclear capability would cost 4% of GDP. Double the current spend. I thought you chaps were all about small government? The cost of nukes would put the cost of renewables in the shade.

 

The one, conclusive reason why Australia won't go nuclear

 

The article states:

Quote

... We’d need to master the technology of making the bomb itself; establish an indigenous missile capability to deliver the weapon; plough money into either a submarine or long-range missile force to host this delivery system; and last (but certainly not least) implement robust command and control procedures to ensure there was no confusion about signalling our intent in during a nuclear crisis and no risk of accidental launch...

Why? Why can't Australia buy already functioning nuclear missile systems from the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this sound awfully familiar?

California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups

Quote

Hugely expensive green mandates will hit poor Californians the hardest.

In April, civil-rights groups sued to stop some of California’s policies designed to address climate change. Then on Monday, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 100, which requires the state’s utilities to obtain all their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045. Before signing the bill, Brown said the legislation was “sending a message to California and to the world that we’re going to meet the Paris agreement.” In fact, it will only increase the hardships that California’s climate policy imposes on the poor, as detailed in the lawsuit.

High electricity prices should be a concern for California policymakers, since electric rates in the state are already 60 percent higher than those in the rest of the country. According to a recent study by the Berkeley-based think tank Environmental Progress, between 2011 and 2017 California’s electricity rates rose more than five times as fast as those in the rest of the U.S. SB 100 will mean even higher electricity prices for Californians.

In addition to cost, the all-renewable push set forth in SB 100 faces huge challenges with regard to energy storage. Relying solely on renewables will require a battery system large enough to handle massive seasonal fluctuations in wind and solar output. (Wind-energy and solar-energy production in California is roughly three times as great during the summer months as it is in the winter.) According to the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy-policy think tank, for California to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables would require about 9.6 terawatt-hours of storage. This would require about 500 million Tesla Powerwalls, or roughly 15 Powerwalls for every resident. A full 100 percent–renewable electricity mandate would require some 36.3 terawatt-hours of storage, or about 60 Powerwalls for every resident of California.

Increasing reliance on renewable energy also means increasing land-use conflicts. Since 2015, more than 200 government entities from Maine to California have voted to reject or restrict the encroachment of wind-energy projects. In 2015 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance banning large wind turbines in the county’s unincorporated areas. Three other California counties — San Diego, Solano, and Inyo — have also passed restrictions on Big Wind. Last year, the head of the California Wind Energy Association lamentedthat “we’re facing restrictions like that all around the state,” adding that “it’s pretty bleak in terms of the potential for new development.” The result of the anti-wind restrictions can be seen in the numbers. Last year, California had about 5,600 megawatts of installed wind capacity. That’s roughly 150 megawatts less than what the state had back in 2013.

The land-use problem facing Big Wind in California is the same throughout the rest of the U.S. and Europe: People in cities like the idea of wind turbines. People in rural areas increasingly don’t want anything to do with them. Those rural landowners don’t want to see the red blinking lights atop those massive turbines, all night, every night, for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the harmful noise — both audible and inaudible — that they produce.

Even before SB 100 passed, though, California’s leaders were already facing a legal backlash from minority leaders over the high cost of the state’s climate policies. On April 27, The Two Hundred, a coalition of civil-rights leaders, filed a lawsuit in state court against the California Air Resources Board, seeking an injunction against some of the state’s carbon dioxide–reduction rules. The 102-page lawsuit declares that California’s “reputation as a global climate leader is built on the state’s dual claims of substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously enjoying a thriving economy. Neither claim is true.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Why? Why can't Australia buy already functioning nuclear missile systems from the US?

It would set an interesting precedent :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tor said:

It would set an interesting precedent :)

I doubt they would refuse. The missiles could be purchased together with their nuclear subs which can launch them, ready made, off the shelf. Probably cheaper than the R&D we've been paying for failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Forgot to add that I would love to see South Australia go 100% renewables and see what happens. Right now they're surviving mostly on gas strangely enough, despite their 'glowing' green credentials!

Live Supply & Demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 9:28 PM, staringclown said:

Third is that sea level rises will continue on at least the same trajectory as they are currently tracking.

NASA - Sea levels from 1870

Interesting graph, shame is doesn't go further back. So are we to assume that the rising trend was caused by human activity as far back as 1870? Who in their right mind can believe that? What hard evidence is there that economic activity and population in the 19th century would have been sufficient to alter sea levels. Shame that graph doesn't go back further. Perhaps it would have shown that neanderthals burning wood fires to keep warm were the source of rising sea levels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 8:02 PM, cobran20 said:

Your specific predictions will be matched against this one from Armstrong, which I expect we will know the answer within 5 years:

Quote

... This downturn in global cooling will spark a rise in food prices on the horizon. ...

 

The difference between BS ideology and accurate forecasting:

January ’19 ASX East wheat contract prices surge

Quote

BREAKING: PRICES for this coming January’s ASX East wheat contract have reached new season highs of $442 a tonne after devastating frosts in Western Australia over the weekend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobran20 said:

NASA - Sea levels from 1870

Interesting graph, shame is doesn't go further back. So are we to assume that the rising trend was caused by human activity as far back as 1870? Who in their right mind can believe that? What hard evidence is there that economic activity and population in the 19th century would have been sufficient to alter sea levels. Shame that graph doesn't go back further. Perhaps it would have shown that neanderthals burning wood fires to keep warm were the source of rising sea levels!

Some of those famines nicely coincide with periods of low sunspots. But that is purely coincidental as such weather cannot occur as part of a natural cycle, but only due to actions of humans, even if it occurred a few centuries ago! :wacko:

The Deadliest Famines Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how should we score this other grand prediction on globull warming?

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

Quote

PETER JAMES SPIELMANN
Jun. 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

It really justifies the $squillions wasted wisely spent on unreliable, expensive forms of electricity generation!

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