Climate Croc Change

Hi Phil,

I have always found it interesting understanding the reasons for naming of some of the of rivers, reefs and locations etc in indigenous and English names. Like Seal Rocks up from Newcastle and out from Gladestone!

One thing I can't agree on mate, is things are like the old days.

Cheers

Seakarvan

Well you have had the Mexican invasion for a while now, so a few penguins shouldn't be a problem!

Hi Mick,

It would appear that mammals and marine life are telling us something.

re Crocs; The southern habit point 'was' around Gladestone apparently. As temperatures rise all creatures adapt, innovate, survive, I guess.

Cheers

Seakarvan

Seakarvan

The question is can enough humans adapt and innovate to survive without endangering more species ;)

Whale sharks are moving further south too, and those little deadly stingers, irukandji.

Just so long as you blokes keep such a good thing to yourselves lol. If they ever learn to tolerate 10C, then I'm heading even further south.

Cheers Mick

Hi Terra'Mer,

re Irukandji Stingers: that indigenous spelling got me, spellcheck apologises.
They were named after the local tribe in the Whitsundays that we shot out.
The dedicated research person died not that long back and his docs were lost in a Brisbane fire at his former home - Irukandji research took a leap backwards.

I dived off Hook a few years ago in stinking humidity (bridging season) and on getting back on the boat the sweat in the stinger suite (total cover) poured out. Not a Hamilton Island brochure photo I'll tell you.
The Green Turtles, I was advised, ate the little buggers as well as the Box jellyfish to cleanse parasites from their intestines.

Less environment for the turtles, less turtles, more stingers on the east coast?

Sorry for the rant, it's just that after reading Tim Flannery's books I cannot believe profits and faceless transnational companies are stuffing up our beautiful country.

Cheers

Seakarvan

Don't take Flannery too seriously. He reckons sea levels are going to surge metres, but he's bought a house on the Shoalhaven River!
And, as has been pointed out, the weather blokes can't tell us with any accuracy what will happen next Wednesday, but the Bob Brown lot can forecast EXACTLY what's going to happen 50 years from now.
Cheers, Tony

C'mon Mick ..you know what these over educated Uni students are like, they'd call a bloody Gheko a Croc and wouldn't know the difference.

.

Actually the climate modelling (based on a warming planet using the best available global observation data) has been quite accurate to date. Sea rise is happening but there are conflicting scientific views as to whether polar ice melts will cause large sea level rises or if local effects will cause the fresh water to refreeze. Acidification of sea water as it absorbs excess CO2 is also occurring. The only question is how much of the change is human-induced.

Well interesting that.

I recently found an empirical report which I posted on another forum , that the sea rise around the coast of australia has been 1MM per year from the start of teh 20th century to 2003 and the trend line is absolutely straight.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/pubs/366/co/co_03_aust_mean_sea_level_survey_2003.pdf

There were reports in Sydney newspapers that a scientist had been gagged by his department and not allowed to present a paper for peer review on this subject , and as I understand it similar results.
Regards Philip A

Just to stir the possum and knowing how climate change enthusiasts hate Bolt, try to have a read of this article quoting Tim Flannery's recorded statements on sea level rises.

His buying of a house 1.5 metres above mean sea level on the Hawkesbury implies that he does not practice what he preaches.
Regards Philip A

Rangiephil,
Flannery will be fine. It's his grandkids who'll be building the dyke and putting a croc fence on top.
: )

Suggest you read the follow up to that story Rangie.

The Australian's War on Science 65: Stuart Rintoul misrepresents a scientific paper

As I said, the models for the well-documented polar melts which Flannery and others have relied on have recently been reviewed and refined and it seems quite a few scientists now believe that the local systems involved are more complex than was previously known, and that the ice might re-form. Let's hope so because if it doesn't many people across the globe will be in dire straights.

Damn it. now I made a comment here I'm getting all your comment notices, so for petes sake go read my webpage section on the subject.

HERE

.

I've read more than enough of that rubbish Doug and I've also read many refutations of almost every point your sceptics make. You ought to do the same, helps get some balance.

At the risk of heading off-topic, I think our ability to feed the world's growing population will be a far greater issue before sea levels have us heading for the hills.

Cheer's The Landy

There have theories about the future of the world since before time began. 2000 years ago some ratbag bunch in the middle east were claiming there was going to be an Armageddon. Some fanatics still believe that theory & pray they will be preserved in the after life.
So probably millions of theories have come & nearly all but a few have gone.
The main reason for this is the changing political environment.
I was talking to a retired American farmer the other day & we got talking about the weather where he came from in the North of USA up against the Canadian border.
He bought up the subject of GLOBAL COOLING. I had never heard of this, reason is I was only born in 1961 & it wasn't on the Australian political agenda I guess. There were no Greens holding the balance of power back then.
Anyway, it was a big subject in the states in the 70's. They were going to take ash from power stations & dust the polar ice caps so that they would absorb more heat & melt.
He was adamant this was world politics at the time.
That's another one of the millions that have fizzled out.
Then one of our big recent ones was the hole in the ozone layer.
That theory was so true it probably affected real estate prices in Tasmania. The poor old Tasmanians don't like you bringing up their little "hole in the ozone layer" subject. I found that out while down their.
Thank god for All Gore. The Tasmanians should love him.
I reckon he fixed the hole by making a movie about global warming.
So don't worry too much about it all. Time will move on & another theory will come along that will propel someone to the top of the heap until someone overthrows them with another theory.
Take a look at the changing theories on Aboriginal inhabitation in Australia.
In the 60's they were saying the current race of Aborigines, that came originally from near India, had only arrived in Australia a few hundred years prior to Europeans & that the previous race were Papuans. Who's descendants still are in Tasmania & the rainforest of NQ.
That's been thrown out the window & the forgetful masses don't remember.
Then there is that painting at Oberi or Ubir, or whatever it is called today, rock in NT. When I first saw it back in about 1980 it was claimed to be 10,000 years old. Then as the political climate changed a bidding war started with different PHD students & universitys grappling for funding until it is now at 40,000 years of age. That is about as far as they can go now until someone claims that this country was inhabited to a number of years greater than 40,000.
I suppose you could say they have hit the "glass cieling".
One of the things I am trying to enlighten some of you to he is that if you rely on government funding for your research grants you will not get funded if your theories disagree with the agenda of the government of the time.
Recently the biggest thing on the government agenda has been the introduction of a carbon tax .
Do you honestly think that the Green led Labor government is going to fund anyone that is willing to put up scientific proof against the need for a carbon tax?

Bazooka
I don't call your post rubbish, I did read it but so what caused the global warming in 1888, I'll tell you.... just normal weather patterns, There was no big industries and cars like today, I'm sure they didn't go on with the stuff being bandied about today by the likes of Gore and Flannery, it's all a fantasy , it got Flannery undeserved recognition.



Adelaide will heat up to the low-to-mid-thirties later this week and on the weekend, potentially making it the hottest lead-up-to-Christmas since the 1980s, according to weatherzone.com.au.

"We'll get four-or-five days above 30 degrees, something which Adelaide hasn't experienced since last summer. And the last time this sort of heat occurred leading into Christmas Day was in 1989," Weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke said.

"Thirty-degree heat may arrive as early as this Wednesday as northeasterly winds develop. From then on, the heat will gradually build, most likely peaking on Christmas Day, when northerly winds increase," Dutschke said.

Christmas Day itself may be the hottest in 25 years with the temperature forecast to climb to the mid-thirties.

The last time Christmas Day was hotter than 34 was in 1986, when it got to 37.3 degrees. If it exceeds 37.3 this Sunday, it will be the hottest Christmas Day since 1945, when it hit 40.1 degrees.

Whilst Christmas is looking hotter than recent years, Adelaide is highly unlikely to break the record, which stands at 42.1 degrees, set in 1888. The average maximum at this time of year is 28 degrees.

Come on Doug, you're better than that. You know the difference between local weather and global climate. In fact from what I've read the climate models which are based on a warming planet predict extremes of weather in some areas while others are expected to remain relatively benign. All the charting, the vast majority of the science and most of the old data (ice cores etc) suggest that gradual warming of the planet is occuring and really the only debate is how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural. But the science is advanced enough to be able to measure CO2 levels pretty accurately and sophisticated enough to know about the effects of CO2 imbalance, as well as how much of the current excess is likely yo have come from 'man' and his activities.

In any case I hope you have a safe and relaxing Xmas, and a prosperous 2012! And thanks for the Sunday mini history threads. A job well done.

Got any evidence for your claims John? Nobody was suggesting that Polar bears would disappear overnight (read that in the Sun did you?), and polar ice caps have been melting and weakening not growing - unless you're talking about some other planet. The bogan theory that it's all a conspiracy invented by thousands of scientists across the globe to keep themselves employed is juvenile to say the least.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted

This was one comment from a scientist to a Washington Post report that ice mass was increasing:

In October 2009 there was much relief when satellite measurements implied most of Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean, ice cover was either thick or multi-year ice. The implication was that Arctic ice was recovering.
However when scientists followed in my footsteps, out on to the ice, they found the truth was very different. Recent peer-reviewed reports show sea ice was ‘rotten’ i.e. thinner, heavily decayed and structurally weak due to uniform temperature throughout. Satellites were unable to distinguish the differences. Only scientists on the ground could do that. The fact is multiyear ice is still declining fast. It melts from warmer water flowing from North Pacific through Bering Strait, not from hot air.
Though most of the Arctic Ocean experienced cooler-than-average surface temperatures in January 2010, the sea ice extent (13.8m sq km) was 7.2% below 1979-2000 average and was the 17th consecutive below-average extent. (It varies between a March maximum and September minimum).
Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes oceans to gain more heat than they lose. This heat imbalance causes the ocean heating trend consistently upward since 1955. Ninety percent of the heat is in the oceans. Oceans have over 4,000 times the heat capacity of air
Don’t be fooled into thinking weather or climate on land is important.
Ocean covers 70% of earth. It is warming and getting more acid.
Ask Alaskan fishery scientists or Pacific oystermen what that means. .

all this proof by those saying ice is melting as those saying it isnt

al ill say is a basic kindergarden study of the history of earth will uncover
-------------------------- its never been stable

heck even the continents used to be one giant land mass

at times up[ to 90% of every species on earth have been wiped out
its been choiked with volcanic gasses
its been through several ice ages

list gos on

but for some reason some tiny brained people think now we can stabalise it because were oh so smart

-what was tyhe name of the king who though he was so powerfull he could comand the tide not to come in??

Image Could Not Be Found

Isn't it typical of the warming lobby to try and denigrate anyone who questions the science.
Maybe its time you came to realize that the world has woken up to this rubbish and moved on.
Or are you going to tell me what a success Durban has been?

Maybe you could tell us all how much global temperatures will change with the introduction of the Carbon Tax?

Try a bit of research yourself Bazooka rather than shooting your mouth off.
Start with the recent Climate Gate 2.0 emails, to gain a perspective of the depth of corruption thats been undertaken by the "Sky is falling" lobby in the pursuit of money.

But I guess you think Al Gore's film "Inconvenient Truth" is a factual film and not the work of fiction its been proved to be.
Gore is happy, Gore and his partners pocketed a cool $100 million plus from their Chicago Climate Exchange before it collapsed in a puff of hot air!!

Hi Bazooka

Its probably been 30 years now since the evidence examined scientifically supported climate change induced by humans , now we are at a point when there is almost no contary edvidence (but plenty of external contary opinion) and the discussion has gone off the boil as we move into the more heated relm of what practical measures can be undertaken to reduce it.

Found myself opposing Carbon Taxes , not on a scientific basis but because of the polical trust issue - I think the way ithe law was passed has caused more damage to getting the public behind future policy than the small local benefits that might flow from it.

The science will always win because its self correcting but the journey can be long painful and unfortunately the top medals are awarded posthumously.

Regardless of whether climate change is true or false, it makes a lot of sense for us to live with the least amount of impact on the environment anyway. We all should count ourselves fortunate that we can use 20 l/100 kms to tour around the country. Sooner or later the big tank will run dry and our kids or grand kids may not be so fortunate. By assuming climate change, energy will be dearer and therefore used less. Perhaps a good strategy until a viable alternative is in place? Or maybe we just say bugger the kids?

Hi Mikehzz

Have you been following the good news on various Lithium advancements.

It seems researchers have now shown that Li batteries have the potential to hold 10 times the current charge capacity at the same time as accepting 10 times the charge rate, this is a real deal changer.

While commercialization will be maybe 10 years , the light on the horizon just got a good deal brighter for Electric vehicles.

I'll take up your gracious invitation John. I admit I haven't read much about climate change for many months now (thought we'd moved on) and hadn't heard about the magically reappearing ice-caps until I saw your comment but it's so wide of the truth it deserved a response. I've read all about 'carbon gate' and the explanations as well. Certainly nothing to get hysterical about if you look at the detail. I've also read the detailed science/evidence-based rebuttals of most of the anonymous denier misinformation and I know who I'd put my trust in. There are certainly many gaps in our knowledge but all the pointers are there to say we should be taking a precautionary approach if not for ourselves then for our kids, as Mikehzz says.

Carbon taxes are already operating in a number of countries and they will be implemented in one form or another in most major 'first world' countries within a decade. They may not have a great effect on current CO2 levels or global temperatures until the big polluters take action (China's already moving) but every little bit helps. I'm sure you know though that's just one of the effects of a carbon tax. The other equally important outcomes will be a very slow weaning from our reliance on oil and carbon-based energy, acceleration of renewable energy uptake, and a focus on across the board energy saving (more efficient cars and buildings etc). Most large companies have already adopted energy saving policies and factored in carbon prices. The tax is an incentive to make changes happen quicker - and it was a policy of both major parties until recently. Wonder why?

What has this got to do with croc movements? Don't know, probably not a lot, although erratic and extreme weather patterns are precisely in line with global warming climate model predictions.

Robin, I look forward to any developments that take away dependency on oil. The Middle East would become an irrelevant backwater :-)
However, until it is all up and running we should probably be stretching our resources as far as possible. Having said that, the battery chargers need to be running on something anyway...nuclear? That's a can of worms, but a nuclear powered Jeep or Landy would suit me. Of course, a Patrol has no need for such enhancements (winks and ducks for cover :-)). Mike

Only just spotted this thread. Couldn't help myself but to respond to John's post. Last time this forum had a ding dong on the topic I gave up all hope for Australian popular science and sworew nebver to enter into another of these debates after reading all the earnest reports here from forumites who said they knew about science and knew that ice floated so therefore if the ice caps melted, the oceans wouldn't get deeper and therefore the climate change stuff was nonsense Loved the bit John about telling peoiple to go do some research. So let's check some. The bit about carbon tax not changing temperatures is one of the great, carefully worded lies by the radio shock jocks when misquoting Flannery. The point about stabilizing carbon levels is that it WONT lower temperatures at all. We are already past the point at which this is possible and it would take take many, many years of maintaining the current levels before there was any drop in global temperatures. What Flannery had been pointing out was that the best we could do was SLOW the increase in global temperature and hope we can (eventually) halt the increase. This was grabbed by people like Alan Jones on radio to trumpet that Flannery had said that a carbon tax wouldn't reduce temperatues one degree. Correct, but knowingly misleading.

I don't think I would be quoting "Climate Gate" emails as evidence if I were you John. There were several high level investigations into the first, which was released anonymously and right on the eve of Copenhagen. If you have done the reseach you claim you do on the topic, you'll know why no-one took any notice of the latest climate gate "leaks", again, coincidentally appearing just before Durban. Clue. Check the meaning of "cherry picking" as a way to distort people's statements.
The scientists quoted in Climate gate one were exonerated in all the investigations and if you check you will find what they actually said before they were "cherry picked".

But I'll agree with you on one thing. Durban has been a waste of time. I'd see that as a victory for the entrenched big business mob more concerned with a quick buck that the long term welfare of the planet. The tactics that have been used are strikingly similar to the war that was waged on science by the smoking lobby a few decades ago.

Thats the same Tim Flannery that predicted in 2005, that Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water"

The same one that said In 2008, "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

The same Flannery that in 2007, predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

The same Flannery that gets $180,000 a year to work 3 days a week to try and make up such crap in support of the Gillard Carbon Tax.

Trying to utilise anything said by the likes of Flannery or even his mate Will Steffen and their CC Commission to support your argument is a simple embarrassment!!

You still haven't addressed the points I made. The fact remains that the temperature changes are following the predicted movement quite precisely in line with the modelling of increasing co2. The more difficult thing is to develop the specifics of modelling over shorter term . Exact placing of which areas might get wetter or drier is far more difficullt to model. There is lots of uncertainty about just what ocean warming will do to currents and these will effect rainfall/drought areas. What is fairly certain is that the increase in temp/water will cause more violent weather. Flannery isn't God and the modelling is complex stuff. So the attempts to make short term prdictions based on the interpretastion of trends (ie., the difference between weather and climate) are sure to be problematical. The heads in the sand and we refuse to believe its happening mob and their weird attempts at science are just laughable.
But I'm pleased to see that this time no-one has trotted out the Alan Jones "Co2 is good, we need it for the trees" line. So maybe we are getting there after all.
And I didn't utilize arguments from Flannery. I only pointed to the big lie technique that was used to knowingly misquote Flannery in the much misused "Carbon Tax won't lower temperature" argument

Is There Global Cooling!!

Contains links to NOAA, BOM, NASA, NSIDC, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, various other web sites etc with further links.

Refers to, sea temperatures, ice formation, polar bear numbers, global storms, record low world temperatures etc despite claimed rising CO2 levels.

I'm sorry that its not signed by the Government/UN funded IPCC scientists and we all know that if its not signed by the UN-IPCC and confirmed by Bob Brown then it cant be true!!
It utilises the same data sources in a lot of cases that the IPCC reports use except the IPCC leave out the real detail lest it impedes their funding source if they suddenly cast doubt on their own hysteria.

The climate has always changed and always will, the changes that occur in our world have come and gone before.
Taxing the air we breath is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution, particularly by socialist governments that are intent on spending this country (and others) into economic Armageddon.

John, are you pulling my leg? Your source of information is Geof Porhanks. Can I suggest that you do a search on him and his history before offering him as your source of information. Another classic cherry picker.
If you accept Porhanka, how do you feel about the great conspiracy on the moonlanding? Here is a site with similar treatment of scientific sources that proves the USA didn't land anyone on the moon. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

You can find similar stuff re 7-11 and Father Xmas. If you wish.

One of the interesting things about those anxious to reject the findings of scientists on climate change is their belief in a conspiracy of world governments. You think that is more likely than a program of misinformation from big businesses anxious not to have restrictions on the way they operate?Again, you can learn lots by looking at the responses of business to tobacco and asbestos research.

Some great throw away lines John - but I think (hope) most Australians are intelligent enough to see through the 'taxing the air we breathe' mantra. In some cities in China I'd reckon the locals might think taxing the polluters is the very minimum that should be done but of course they have very little say in the matter.

Can you provide links to those quotes from Flannery? I'm just a little sceptical about this one in particular because it doesn't sound anything like what a scientists would say ('never'?), let alone one who has studied climate change: 'cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

I note you've ignored my comment regarding a carbon tax's effect on alternative energy uptake and energy-use efficiency. Perhaps because every indicator suggests that it has worked overseas and will work here.?

Its obvious you didn't even read the links to the titles of each issue.
You shoot the messenger because he offers a listing of authorities that are normally "Cherry Picked" by the UN-IPCC to suit themselves and denigrate him with your warmest attitude that 'I'm right and no one knows it like I do" and this bloke or anyone who offers an alternate view is wrong.

So your now suggesting that the graphing by the Aus BOM is wrong?
The satellite reports released by NASA are wrong?
The world ice data by NSIDC is wrong?
The surveys by US Fish & Game are wrong?
The raw data is offered and you say it can't be right!!
The data by these authorities is recent, not like the stuff Bazooka and yourself are promoting.
Obviously the science is settled in your obstructed mind and you entertain no alternative view because Bob Brown and Gillard say it can't be true.

I offered the site to purely save me linking dozens of alternative sources of information separately and a time line of cooling etc.

By the way your earlier comments about "The fact remains that the temperature changes are following the predicted movement quite precisely in line with the modeling of increasing CO2" is so far from the truth that it clearly shows your ignorance and bias.

What is pleasing is the vast majority of Australians and the world for that matter clearly don't believe the AGW/CC crap or whatever name the warming lobby wants to use today.
This government will be gone and the CT legislation with it, sorry if that upsets you inner city Labor/Green latte sipping supporters.

John, you obviously haven't looked at the reports. They simply don't say what you are claiming. If you did a bit more work researching Geof P you would find that he cherry picked the lot.
And I'm not a Gillard supporter. She was dragged kicking and screaming to the quite ineffective legislation they passed.
The problem with Australians attitudes, and I guess most of the worls for that matter, is that they don't want to accept responsibility for the long term good of this country. Our kids are going to pay a terrible price because our polilies are not game to show any leadership beyond what they think will be popular for the next election cycle. We are happy to accept the sacrifices that previous generations made so that we live in the comfort and security we now have, but we are not prepared to accept responsibility for our kid's future.
PS. How much do you really know about Bob Brown? I didn't see too many of our politicians (left or right) putting themselves on the line the way he personally did when that Australian journalist was kidnapped and ransomed in Somalia. And he did it quietly so he didn't get big noted in the news. It was the journalists family, not Brown, who released the story.

Bazooka our respective posts crossed paths.
Flannery's quotes are on the web for all to see, including his latter attempts to distance himself from those quotes, including You Tube videos.

The use of alternatives is a nice thought and gives those who like to sit around sipping lattes a warm feeling (no pun intended) but they are being dropped as a credible source of energy for a number of reasons, one being they are not cost effective and the CT will have no effect on this as manufacturing moves to countries without a soul destroying tax.

Even Germany has at last count 26 new coal fired power stations planned or under construction as they are not able to make alternates work for them.

I agree some cities in China as they do in many other major cities of the world seriously need to address the REAL air pollution they are suffering such as CO, soot etc.
CO2 is not a pollutant despite the rhetoric of the warming lobby, do some research and perhaps stop accepting the rhetoric of those whose financial interest are directly linked to the hype.

John, I have never heard any authoritive person arguing the case for climate change say that C02 is a pollutant. It isn't. We need it for plant growth and to help maintain equitable temperatures after dark. But I have heard Alan Jones and others of his ilk say that those arguing that climate change is occurring say C02 is a pollutant. This is called a "straw man" argument. You put up a false position for yopur adversary, then attack it. Jones et al then pour scorn on the idea that a gas that plants need is a pollutant. The problem with Co2 is the level in the atmosphere. Like salt. A little is necessary for you. Too much is disastrous. Our planet (and us) evolved with lower levels of cO2. It was locked up in fossil fuels that took vast periods of time to accumulate. Trouble is, we are re-releasing it in the blink of a geological eye. To make matters worse, we have destroyed most of the vast forests that might have soaked up some of the C02. So now it is disolving into the oceans. When you dissolve C)2 in water, you get acid. And now the oceans acidic levels are steadily rising. Arguably, the increasing acidification level of the ocean is even more dangerous to the balance of life on the planet than than rising temperatures.

The only people I've seen talking about CO2 as a pollutant are deniers John (although it does depend on your interpretation of 'pollutant'. Marine organisims trying to cope with an increasingly acidic sea might consider CO2 toxic, indirectly). The same people who claim it's a 'colourless, odourless and weightless (!) gas' (the implication being that therefore it must be harmless). The simple fact is that when CO2 is out of balance as is currently the case it has major deleterious effects on the environment over the long term.

I've searched for actual references to Flannery's words but can only find repetitive copying of claims that he said such and such on the expected denier and shockjock sites. Not one of the few I bothered to look at had any references to precisely where, or when, it was supposedly said (or the actual words used), so you'll excuse me if I take it as the usual mischief from the usual suspects. If he said those things then I'd like to see the context for a start, but I doubt any scientist would seriously say NEVER about such a thing as weather and climate. That's as nonsensical as a claim of global cooling.

You mention NSIDC as though it supports a no warming position. Apparently not. http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/08/24/climate-change-or-variability-what-rules-arctic-sea-ice/ (the insert link feature wouldn't work). Their data is extremely limited (1979 on) so you need to exercise caution when interpreting it in any case.

I can't be bothered looking at any of the rest in detail simply because as Mike said it is piecemeal, it shows tiny bits of information totally out of context, it is rarely if ever attributed, it is rarely if ever peer reviewed, it attempts to equate short term trends in weather with long-term trends in climate, it claims that raw data are better than 'normalised' data, etc. And, as I said, I've read detailed scientific debunking of most of the claims already. I don't have a closed mind on the subject at all - but I find having a damn good nonsense detector and an analytical mind helps when looking at any topic.

My take on the lack of support for action on climate change (or more correctly lack of support for a tax on big carbon) is entirely different to yours. For starters the denier industry has bombarded the air and net waves with unsubstantiated nonsense dressed up as science with the sole aim of confusing people. 'Lord' Monckton's offerings are classic examples. They even repeat at every opportunity that we 'are going it alone', despite CLEAR EVIDENCE that this isn't the case - nor are we anywhere near leading the world in action against climate change. But even bigger than that are the human factors. 'We' don't like the fact that Gillard has done something which she said she wouldn't (even though it's inevitable in politics and happens with every government ever elected). 'We' don't like change, especially if it might cost us and we can't see any immediate effect (even though the economic impact for the vast majority of Australians will be tiny). We also have great difficulty in accepting anything long-term (but conversely will immediately whinge loud and strong that our governments should have 'done something' when things go wrong). And, sadly, we have become a selfish and self-centred society.

"The only people I've seen talking about CO2 as a pollutant are deniers"
"I have never heard any authorities person arguing the case for climate change say that C02 is a pollutant"

You guys lead a pretty sheltered life I see, every time the likes of Gillard, Combet, Brown and Milne etc open their mouths then its the Carbon pollution line!!

Or haven't you heard about the so called 1000, sorry now 500 big polluters (And reducing) or the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and Rudd's bill titled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme 2009.

Even your esteemed Flannery calls it carbon pollution.

Flannery Article

The NSIDC link clearly discusses the fact that Arctic ice has had major increases in the last couple of years and the overall world ice levels are stagnant with the increase in the south offsetting the loss from the north.
Funny the IPCC guys can't offer an explanation for that little issue either huh!!

Peer review is a great line hey!!
Two blokes each paid by the same source review each others papers and agree.
Funny that, they would do and say anything to protect their funding source.
In all instances the business of Climate Change means follow the money!!

Look you guys can keep pushing your fear mongering sky is falling line all you like, you can continue to be suckered by the political crap and spin if that makes you happy as I said earlier on the world has moved beyond this rubbish and is leaving it far behind, Canada saying bye to a useless Kyoto agreement is the start of many others.

The biggest thing that should concern our future children is how they will repay the enormous debt being run up by this government.

John - your first post notwithstanding, for a few moments I actually thought that you were a serious thinker about climate change. Your last post shows your true colours unfortunately. Did you miss the NSIDC comment that 'Arctic sea ice has declined more than 30 percent in summer since satellite measurements started in 1979' ? But the part that exposes you is the 'fear mongering', 'sky is falling' mantra typical of deniers, and the 'enormous govt debt' comment, which I can only assume is meant as a joke. Aust govt debt is very low and the budget will be back in the black within 18 months - not that this is significant as far as economic management is concerned as anyone with a basic understanding of national economies knows well.

I'm a little concerned that you have no idea about peer review, its importance in every branch of science, and the checks and balances it provides. Why would you, or anyone, think that scientists, scientific institutions and scientific publications value their reputations any less than say a businessman or public figure? The peer review process involves much more than one mate scratching another mate's back as you seem to think. It brings rigour and integrity into research, and often exposes gaps, and incorrect assumptions or conclusions. It ain't perfect but it's better than the unsubstantiated 'opinion' being pedalled by Monckton and his ilk.

Canada's an interesting case. Not sure what the feds there are doing but both BC and Quebec have introduced their own carbon taxes. Interestingly in both cases it was the Liberal Party which brought the taxes in.

John - your first post notwithstanding, for a few moments I actually thought that you might be a serious thinker about climate change. Your last post shows your true colours unfortunately. Did you miss the NSIDC comment that 'Arctic sea ice has declined more than 30 percent in summer since satellite measurements started in 1979' ? But the part that exposes you is the 'fear mongering', 'sky is falling' mantra typical of deniers, and the 'enormous govt debt' comment, which I can only assume is meant as a joke. Aust govt debt is very low by any measure and the budget will be back in the black within 18 months - not that this is significant as far as economic management is concerned as anyone with a basic understanding of national economies knows well. I will certainly be concerned for my children's future if the already severely watered down MRRT is rolled back and a few multi-national mining companies are able to exploit our resources for far less than market value. That would be a great tragedy.

I'm a little concerned that you have no idea about peer review, its importance in every branch of science, and the checks and balances it provides. Why would you, or anyone, think that scientists, scientific institutions and scientific publications value their reputations any less than say a businessman or public figure? The peer review process involves much more than one mate scratching another mate's back as you seem to think. It brings rigour and integrity into research, and often exposes gaps, and incorrect assumptions or conclusions. It promotes debate and discussion and often leads to further research. There is no doubt that it plays a critical part in the advancement of science and the debunking of pseudo-science. It ain't perfect but it's better than the unsubstantiated 'opinion' being pedalled by Monckton and his ilk, in my opinion.

Canada's an interesting case. Not sure what the feds there are doing but both BC and Quebec have introduced their own carbon taxes. Interestingly in both cases it was the Liberal Party which brought the taxes in.

By the way. My understanding is that the term 'carbon pollution' refers to greenhouse gases as a whole, not just CO2 - although it is by far the biggest 'polluter'.

Sorry, net connection problems.

Sorry about the delay, I've been away.
"The only people I've seen talking about CO2 as a pollutant are deniers"
"I have never heard any authorities person arguing the case for climate change say that C02 is a pollutant"

You guys lead a pretty sheltered life I see, every time the likes of Gillard, Combet, Brown and Milne etc open their mouths then its the Carbon pollution line!!

Or haven't you heard about the so called 1000, sorry now 500 big polluters (And reducing) or the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and Rudd's bill titled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme 2009.

Even your esteemed Flannery calls it carbon pollution.
I'll concede you that point John. It's a semantic issue however. When deniers use the word "pollutant" that use it to say there is nothing wrong with Co2 and go on to argue it isn't a poison like some reasl contaminants. the other side use it to refer to the volume of it in the atmosphere, ie, the proprtion and itdss consequences rather than denyingh that the gas actually is essential in the atmosphere, up to a point. Alan Jones in particular constantly makes this misrepresentation.
This doesn't however change the nature of the argument. I'm becoming inclined to accept Bazooka's opinion that you aren't really arguing at all, you are running a political line and the arguments are really of no consequence to you.When you get a point you don't like, you don't try to consider iit, you just move on to the next line.

Yeah mate,

The current croc numbers have taken them well and truly off the endangered species list.

On the last trip to the Cape we saw a couple big travellers camping on the beach between Sadd point and Chilli Beach.
Those bigguns are still quite rare though. It appears to be the 3m ones that are cheeky. As it's been said, they have not had the 300 Norma mag experience.

As with this polarising topic of CO2 induced climate change, personally I hope the sceptics are right !!! With 8 grandkids why would I not go for a bit of blind faith.

Cheers and merry Xmas to all

Seakarvan

Probably not a box jelly if she survived Berylvt.
I met a bloke that ended up with a useless hand from an accidental box jelly fish sting in a lab.
He only copped 4 inches of sting across the wrist & even with all the medical aide you would get working on jellyfish in Townsville he nearly died.
Now he has a dodgy ticker & semi paralysed hand.

The piece of tentacle was only about 1 cm long but the markings were typical of chironex - ladder - like striations. I have seen box jelly stings a number of times and am familiar with their appearance. It is generally said that you need 1/4 meter of sting to kill an adult. Thus a stinger suit should prevent a fatal sting from a box jelly - not so for irukandji though - also said to be moving south.

Hi Philip

Nearly didn't see your reply , yes when the energy density is greatly increased ,which now looks possible the management issues will certaintly increase.

While batterries catching fire doesn't happen a bit its massively below the issues or vapour from petrol etc and we have learnt to live with these.

Electric vehicles will be great for camping and 4wding , massive torque from zero revs and a battery that could power your fridge for a year will be sometihn to see.

I see we now have "Holden Volts" , so its on the way all right.

"Hijacked by climate change"
With respect Beatit maybe you should look again at the post heading by Seakarvan himself.

The attitude of blaming everything that is naturally occurring on the CC/AGW debate has worn itself out.

I saw one on the western side of Fraser about ten years ago. I thought they were always there, just not common.

OK Lads and Lassies,
In relation to nature adapting to change, ( a safe call?) and returning to the son-in-law issue at Tannum Sands, the locals said "If you want a dip in the Boyne River, don't let us stop you, but you will be in there without us" He heeded the wise advice.

Now we have done the Gladstone region lets have a look at Fraser Island.

An old NPWS bloke showed us a track over to the west coast back in the 1800's (lol)
It was pristine. The place was called Awinya Creek.

The following year we took Mathesons barge over to Moon Pt then up to Awinya spending 4 weeks crabbing, fishing and loving the relative isolation (1 Unimog on low tide passed by once a week ie until he bogged it at Wathumba crossing)

One night a mate set a wire line in the creek behind us and we were woken by some serious thrashing about. Torches on, we spotted a small Bull shark which had taken the bait being thrown about like a toy. To be honest, the mate said it was a croc and I take his word (he has seen more crocs than me and was shocked) but it was all in seconds and the bugger disappeared with the camp noise.
There was 3 metres of water in the creek that night so we hoped the croc wasn't sitting on his tail?

With experience in the north both families took it cautiously from then on.

The mate told the Barge owner on the way back and he said he had heard a few stories before so it was no surprise to him. "Plenty of feed and isolation and they used to breed up the Maryborough River???" he reckoned.

The missus and I took our boat up a couple of years ago and anchored off a base camp towards Wathumba.. We had a look but gave Awinya a miss - a sad place now. BBQ's and a good road in.

SDG saw a croc on the west coast of Fraser 10 years ago. I reckon they are there too mate.
Maybe a traveller or two in the warmer months.

Cheers

Seakarvan