Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.
What's a BOM?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Bill of materials?
QQ, can you clarify your statement in post #40..?
The scientists did not overplay their hand. The scientists did not lose credibility.
The people who think they did are victims of hype, lies, and propaganda. They have granted credibility to bunkum artists, and lost it for themselves.
As you have been told a dozen times now, and simply refuse to acknowledge:
different in magnitude x rate.
Also: Different in O levels (lower than past CO2 heights) and ecological conditions (human landscape alterations). But the rate is the main factor.
It's approximately ten times faster than any global climate change in the geological or paleontological record except meteor impact. And that is directly attributable to the fact that the CO2 boost is likewise an order of magnitude faster than any on record.
Bureau of Meteorology
The BOM is as sculptor states.
The litmus test is more about economics than fancy speeches.
It is how the Global insurance industry reacts to increasing losses that will eventually persuade people that climate change is real and imminent.
There’s no balancing this ledger.
Insurance companies face greater dangers from climate change, including weather-related catastrophes and court fights, than they do silver linings, according to a report released today by Moody’s Investors Service, the ratings agency.
From payouts after a hurricane, flood or other disaster to lawsuits that could wrap them up in costly litigation, insurers and reinsurers are severely exposed to the perils of climate change, Moody’s said.
A bureau is much like an empty bucket
fill it with milk and you have one substance and one benefit
fill it with whiskey and you have another substance and another benefit(?)
People often tend to follow the crowd
It's a bias thing
Is the glass 1/2 full? 1/2 empty? or twice as big as it needs to be?
It's often a matter of bias.
derives from when I stood up in an anthropology seminar, while discussing neanderthalensis, and declared that we couldn't really tell much about these people without knowing the climate(and consequent food sources and consequent needed comfort measures) in which they lived.
so i had to spend some time in the tracks clarifying my argument
that was 40 years ago
amazingly little of paleoclimates was known then
You may notice that I often refer climate correspondents to a study of man circa 400kyrs ago.
Are you seriously suggesting that the BOM's bias produced this graph ( posted earlier)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it doesn't.
It's too well aligned with the media feed from the rightwing corporate think tanks, too oblivious to extant data and information, to have derived from any scientific basis or acquisition of knowledge.
Irrelevantly, in each case.
It's 4 am, we have clear skies and a temp of 16.8C.
The preceding 24 hours have been clear skies with a max temp of about 35C
Can any one explain how we can have a 25% (day) to 83% humidity gain by 4am?
Note: December average is 47% relative humidity.
I think half of Melbourne would be unable to sleep tonight and it feels wrong and out of character. or maybe it's just me...being overly sensitive...
If the water vapor content stays the same and the temperature drops, the relative humidity increases. If the water vapor content stays the same and the temperature rises, the relative humidity decreases. This is because colder air doesn't require as much moisture to become saturated as warmer air.
when it's hot and humid
the sweat running down my legs feels like bugs crawling on me
Extraordinary record braking heat wave in Australia.
A quick look at all the records that have been broken, there appears to be a 0.1- 1 degree C involved.
Fortunately here in Melbourne we have missed most of it even though it has been quite hot.
fyi if you dont already know
sea temps is super new
historical aligned data will be highly problematic until some reliable scientists have done it.
the suggestion is there is a very real problem with previously over looked sea temp rises with an exponential effect.
The deep waters of the pacific ocean have been and are now cooling...
I am far from qualified to make anything but speculative claims, however there is a strong impression that the climate scientists are deliberately avoiding the alarmist position. "Best to let the population find out for themselves over time" type perspective. A "push, pull" type politics.
One thing is certain, IMO, and that is you can not heat our oceans surface area by such amounts with out expecting significant consequences.
Remembering that about 75% of our world's surface area is water one can not under-state the impact that such would have on
The amount of water mass, airborne and becoming airbourne daily.
The effect this has on global humidity levels.
Levels of precipitation, rain and snow.
Storm dynamics, especially intensity.
Gathering of water heavy cloud at the equator (?)
To fully declare the obvious would only render the climate scientists with out credibility due to the fear their alarming observations would generate.
However perhaps I am wrong....
There are also factors unkown by science that could come into play, either for the better or worse.
Noting a recent dramatic Nth pole shift, increased geothermal or seismic activity, for example...
Given that iceaura has declared me to be a climate change denier (despite my protests), I may have some right to speak for them. So, I think this is defamation.
I believe that political sciences (sciences where there is a strong political interest in favor of a particular scientific result) look quite different. The grad students are poor, and, more seriously, they have no safe job at all. They have to look every two years or so for a new job or a new grant, else they are out. So, whatever they think, they have to care about what the mainstream thinks because the mainstream leaders have control over the jobs and grants. Thus, they have to follow all mainstream fads. Open opposition to the mainstream means the end of the scientific career, something they cannot allow themselves given that they may have a family and so on. The result is 97% of them supporting the mainstream (or, more accurate, not openly opposing it), independent of the scientific value of the actual mainstream position.
But, ok, this is my idea about how this works, and real climate change deniers have a different opinion.
But the side effect of alarmists in the media presenting themselves as presenting scientific evidence is that scientists lose credibility. Such is life. It is essentially unavoidable, at least as long as scientists do not openly object against the exaggerations made by the alarmists.
But they don't. Doing this could be dangerous to their career, at least until they have a permanent job, but even after this because the ability to get grants for the own university is among the most important things used to evaluate those with permanent jobs.
i have watched quite a bit of documentary type media put together by scientists and i do not believe they are attempting to fool anyone.
noted also is that the claim that their message has suddenly changed is alt-right climate denier propaganda.
what i was attempting to elucidate is the increasing knowledge of related influences and cause & effect dynamics of global weather/climate.
1 thing came to mind while reading your list
country's where entire towns are built on loose sedimentary hills & slopes.
massive increase in rain fall over short periods of time loading massive extra weight into hillsides creating hydraulics.
the other big scary monster is methane & other sinks in the north pole(antarctic) that are coming unplugged.
i suspect no government wants to bring that subject up.
"alarmissim" is the power & control freaks tool as a motivator for whom they dominate(but used as a victim shaming manipulator defense).
which is why i have a fairly dim view of those running about labeling scientists as alarmists.
in the scientific sense it is equal to calling those same climate deniers terrorist supporters.
so many fingers in the till though and hands in the cookie jar
as soon as the centre left start talking long term economic strategy the alt-right & conservatives start screaming instant-total global economic crash while sneering at the upper middle class suggesting they are about to lose their weekly gin money.
it is all so awfully dishonest.
science has no need for greed, but greed has need for science.
such is the position when scientists give science to corporate greed-mongers
the corporate greed-mongers reply
"but how do i get to take all the food and money if i have to share some of it?"
to which there is no answer, and currently is the only official reply.
Separate names with a comma.