Print Page | Close Window

Climate Change - That Disobedient Ice Cap

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: Saltwater Fishing
Forum Name: The Captain Morgan Briny Bar
Forum Description: The place for general chat on saltwater fishing!
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=131636
Printed Date: 23 Oct 2019 at 5:22am


Topic: Climate Change - That Disobedient Ice Cap
Posted By: Joker
Subject: Climate Change - That Disobedient Ice Cap
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 3:08pm
https://thebfd.co.nz/2019/08/arctic-ice-refuses-to-melt-as-ordered-2/" rel="nofollow - https://thebfd.co.nz/2019/08/arctic-ice-refuses-to-melt-as-ordered-2/



Replies:
Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 4:09pm
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2817/with-thick-ice-gone-arctic-sea-ice-changes-more-slowly/" rel="nofollow - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2817/with-thick-ice-gone-arctic-sea-ice-changes-more-slowly/
 
I would rather trust the science.


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 4:15pm
Holy ****, that entire website is a complete trash fire. I assume it's where all the Whale Oil fans have migrated to.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 4:28pm
Its quite funny how NASA provides the data and the USofA don't give a hoot.


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 6:09pm
Check out the massive peat fires in Russia,and coal fires in old mines that have been burning for years. We are still (50k years) coming out of an ice age.....warmer temps...more co2.....and we have only been keeping temp records for.maybe 100yrs max.

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2019 at 6:23pm
The sensational headlines are laughable though "hottest month on earth ever recorded". Almost as laughable as well travelled climate alarmists.


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2019 at 10:55pm
Certainly climate is cyclical. We are obviously in a warming trend


Posted By: brmbrm
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 7:51am
****s sake.  You can either believe a few people with massively vested interests in coal/oil/fossil fuels or you can believe the overwhelming scientific evidence.

jesus ****ing **** sake - where has your brain gone?


Posted By: brmbrm
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 7:53am
PS.  The earth is in fact flat.  It says so on the internet so it must be true.

Un. Be. F ucking. Lievable some of this crap


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:25am
Howling doesn't solve anything brmbrm.


Posted By: brmbrm
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:43am
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Howling doesn't solve anything brmbrm.

Not howling, just frustrated at people who cannot understand simple arguments supported by facts and evidence.

I don't accuse the Op of this, nor you, just the people who blindly accept any old **** because "it says so on the internet so it must be true".

Don't forget that there are shed-load of $$$ to be made from carbon pollutants and also people wanting a slice f that shed-load.



Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:44am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

Checkout what Wikipedia says about climate change deniers...

 
"More than 90% of papers scepitical on climate change come from right wing think tanks"
 
I wonder what side of centre the oil industry are on ?
 
As I said i would rather believe the science, not someone that has a vested interest in selling something to me ..
 
 


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:47am
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Howling doesn't solve anything brmbrm.
 
Denying there is a problem is certainly not going going to solve anything ?
 
 


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:52am
Says it all to me..
 
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ar&biw=1366&bih=576&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KdxNXeKWIdDbz7sP5u2d8Ag&q=climate+change+political+cartoons+97%25+of+scientists+oil+companies&oq=climate+change+political+cartoons+97%25+of+scientists+oil+companies&gs_l=img.12...24902.57225..59174...16.0..0.321.11614.2-47j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i30.BKpwnxS-FCU&ved=0ahUKEwiiz6Pl1PbjAhXQ7XMBHeZ2B44Q4dUDCAY#imgrc=ckF-Kx336qv6NM:&spf=1565383782848" rel="nofollow - https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ar&biw=1366&bih=576&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KdxNXeKWIdDbz7sP5u2d8Ag&q=climate+change+political+cartoons+97%25+of+scientists+oil+companies&oq=climate+change+political+cartoons+97%25+of+scientists+oil+companies&gs_l=img.12...24902.57225..59174...16.0..0.321.11614.2-47j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i30.BKpwnxS-FCU&ved=0ahUKEwiiz6Pl1PbjAhXQ7XMBHeZ2B44Q4dUDCAY#imgrc=ckF-Kx336qv6NM:&spf=1565383782848
 
Sorry i suck at running a computer.. the image on the right...


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 9:49am
No just pointing out the champion climate change whiners are some of the champion personal carbon producers. Do as I say not as I do attitude.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 3:00pm
Newshub- A metre of snow,a metre of rain.  Metservice has heavy snow fall warnings for parts of the south island. This cant be right ,surely.

 "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. Children just arnt going to know what snow is."---U.K independant"--2000.

So by 2000 no more snow. Hmmm.
Newshub and metservice printing fake news again.?

Last winter saw the heaviest snowfalls and coldest temperatures in parts of the U.S and Europe since records began. They have only been keeping records for a hundred years or so,
Next thing they will be telling us warming causes cooling.



Posted By: Crochet Cast
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 3:27pm
I'm probably wasting my time but climate isn't weather. Average temperatures are rising fact.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 3:52pm
Yes we know, how much awareness do you need to do? I am aware but still going to fill my car up, eat beef do all that other terrible stuff. I suspect your life ain't to different.


Posted By: MATTOO
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 3:57pm
Fisherman eh,
Always complaining about the weather.
Than exaggerating the size.

-------------
Just cruising in my now sweetas pimped out Southern 755 HT0!


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 4:06pm
Climate and weather go hand in hand,they both change. We may be adding to it,but we are not the sole contributing factor.

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: waynorth
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 5:28pm
Originally posted by fish-feeder fish-feeder wrote:

Climate and weather go hand in hand,they both change. We may be adding to it,but we are not the sole contributing factor.

Quite right. We need to sit those other things down & give them a good talking to. Like the sun for example. And volcanoes.

Actually, I don't know what the fuss is really. Nothing in these charts that a few thousand years can't sort out.












She'll be right mate. If it gets serious I'm sure they'll let us know.


-------------
treat fish like fish


Posted By: krow
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 5:50pm
Guess what too New Zealand's total greenhouse emissions equal 0.2% of global so let's all do our bit and change the world. Try and find that info on the net. Then try and say we aren't being scammed. As far as the science goes all figures can be manipulated. Please note all the figures you are given are cut off in the early 70's. Want to know why? Well just maybe and only maybe (if you can believe the facts) that was the end of a cold spell in the temperatures rhythms of the globe. If you really knew what was what and bothered to actually find out for yourself you'll see these scare mongers have been saying the Artic polar cap will melt completely for 30 years. They just keep changing the prediction date when it doesn't happen. Oh and BTW the warm and colder times are independent of Co2 in the atmosphere too. Problem with the People is once they believe something true you won't change their minds. Show them different and they'll argue till blue in the face rather than admit they may have been misled and believed a lie. On a lighter note: We didn't go to the moon and the world is pear shaped.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 5:53pm
My Dad was born in the 1920s and he along with other elders claim it was warmer during the 1930s/40s than what is today.

Sure Man may of contributed to partial warming today but we cannot be blamed for it all,rising sea levels or are these atols sinking??

The carbon tax con that we have been signed up too is a privilege so we  may get cheaper goods from Asian country's who no intention of reducing their carbon  foot print.

So many unanswered questions,volcanoes peat/forest fires etc must all contribute some way.

100yrs of records proves nothing,Frances hottest days is another con as temps were taken out of the wind and in direct sunshine.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured" rel="nofollow - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured


But they don’t mention that where it was recorded was next to a concrete drain, and a steel chain mesh fence close to a bitumen (asphalt) highway.

And if you feel guilty about climate change better sell your petrol/diesel motors and start paddling as electric is just or more polluting than using fossil fuel.



-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: MATTOO
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 6:07pm
What I don't get is those who buy in to either side of the arguement.
Prefer discussion but protagonists both sides like inflammation.

It actually doesn't matter which side is right.

Unless all countries buy in to either point of view nothing will change.

And that's a "Yeah Right" comment.

So your exacerbation about the subject is like, no emojis available to suit point.
Pissing into the wind.

The main real facts are extensive but are based on human involvement on this flat earth.

We are polluting, raping resources and justifying it in any way we can.
We are thwart humans.

Unless we are all on the same page we are never, never going to resolve the problems our planet has for the survival of humans in what we now or did call good times.

Give up on the fight, accept the fragility of humans good and bad.

Go fishing, love your children, have a mountain of sex with your partner, gorge yourself of the foods available, be excited about the beauties of nature, and go fishing.

Cos theres **** load of nothing you can do about the enevitable decline as we know it.

See you on the water. Or on the rocks.

-------------
Just cruising in my now sweetas pimped out Southern 755 HT0!


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 6:50pm
We are on the same page though aren't we. We all want to enjoy our lives best we can and much of it by produces some sort of pollutant.



Posted By: waynorth
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:15pm
@Krow Yes, of course our total emissions at 0.17% of the world total is tiny, especially compared to the 2 big ones - China at 27% and the USA at 15%. That changes pretty dramatically when you look at per capita though. At 16 tonnes per person we are double China & the UK, and not far behind the USA at 19 tonnes. Interestingly Australia comes in at 8th in the world at 25 tonnes. We might not make much headway convincing China to stop burning coal, or the USA, or even Oz, but our own backyard could do with a cleanup too.   

And you are right about people being unwilling to change their minds. Sometimes its because they operate in an echo chamber, and sometimes because they have a vested interest in denying inconvenient facts. Being skeptical about both the facts and the experts who provide them works for me.

@PJC Its not just the atolls its every sea level gauge on the planet, and the satellites too - all saying the same thing. The low lying atolls are just paying the price first. 

Re the record temperature in France - did your research pick up on the fact that:

"Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change."

Another echo chamber.

@Mattoo  We're never going to solve the planet's problems ? Just give up the fight ? Sounds like a pretty sad self-fulfilling prophecy.  




-------------
treat fish like fish


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:21pm
OK, I wasn't going to post here- it is a fishing website, right?
I have a PhD in science. Brmbrm would call me a climate denier. Greepeace are very good at politicising stffand making labels. I would call myself agnostic. unlike most here (incl Brmbrm) I have spent ages looking for the quintessential science paper linking CO2 to global warming. It has to exist right? Like all great discoveries - Einsteins theory of relativity, Darwins theory of evolution, Watson and Cricks discovery of the duble helix (DNA). (my computer is doing weird **** - sorry - can't fix right now - bear with me)
This seminal paper should be at the top of all GW papers as the prime citation. It is not. I have spent hundreds of hrs looking for it. Instead I get IPCC quotes. I have read most of the early IPCC reports (unlike Brmbrm I guess) looking for the citation. Guess what... it is not there. Just hypotheses. That is a loooong way from fact.
Show of hands (votes for the hypothesis ) doesnot cut it scientifically. One ugly fact can change a beautiful theory no matter how many subscribe to it. The science iscorrupt. Sorry. You talk about big oil companies etc.. Greepeace rhetoric again. Scientist are corrupt too. They have mortgages to pay, research projects they want to fund.Their move thru the ranks usually depends on the number of papers printed etc. It all takes funding esp in science - expensive equipment, fieldtrips, students to fund etc. Where else to get the funding but the billion $ GW industry. NZ incl. Unlike Brmbrm, I have sat on all sides of this equation - provider of funds, applicant for funds and referee of Govt science funds. It is a game. Make no mistake, and they know how to play it. If you want to studythe sex life of an obscure ant , what funding pool do you have a chance in. Now tag 'with respect to climate change' and your funding pool just grew mega $s. Is this scientist likely to challenge the notion of AGW? Like thousands of others chasing the GW money trail - Billions of $s. Don't point the finger at oil companies.
Unlike Brmbrm, I have been involved in some climate researchfor NZ's past climate.
Brmbrm - find me the papers and I can subscribe to your view. I have spent ages looking for them - no luck so far.
So then we move to 'green' alternatives. brmbrm, do you know how many mega tonnes of planet earth are crushed/mined for rare earths to make the batteries, or how much CO2 is expended? And what to do with the batteries? And how to charge them - sustainably. Dam every river?
For me Hydrogen would be the answer. I doubt I will ever buy an EV - my conscience won't let me, but politics prevail. We all want to be seen to be green, even if it kills us. The energy equation for hydrogen has been the problem. Solar may fix that - if you are comfortable with a tank of hydrogen in your car. But we got to the moon 50 yrs ago, so should be able to solve the pesky issues that go with it.
is the science as setted as you would like to think Brmbrm?. No where near. The IPCC even rates the solar energy factor as 'largely unknown' or - 'poorly understood' I think is theirterm. the largest energy input into planet earth. The largest GHG- water vapour - BY A LOONG WAY. 70-80%. small changes in H2O have a LARGE effect on retained IR heat. The sun emits UV (short wavelength) which is radiated back (at night) as longer wavelength IR. H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than the fractional % CO2. That is why deserts get so cold at night.
So, Brmbrm, find me the papers - that should be at the top of every GW funded research paper, and I will subscribe to your view. Until then, the jury is out on my part.
regards
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 8:32pm
Another scientist said pretty much what you just posted Alan L on the Leighton Smith show on ZB regarding H20 in the atmosphere. But because he is "right wing" he gets shutdown by a lot of people who have a vested interest in creating "crisis". 

Just reading the Guardian apparently 97% of all large freshwater species have gone disappeared since 1970. 97% is a very highly used number among the scientific community! 


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:

OK, I wasn't going to post here- it is a fishing website, right?
I have a PhD in science. Brmbrm would call me a climate denier. Greepeace are very good at politicising stffand making labels. I would call myself agnostic. unlike most here (incl Brmbrm) I have spent ages looking for the quintessential science paper linking CO2 to global warming. It has to exist right? Like all great discoveries - Einsteins theory of relativity, Darwins theory of evolution, Watson and Cricks discovery of the duble helix (DNA). (my computer is doing weird **** - sorry - can't fix right now - bear with me)
This seminal paper should be at the top of all GW papers as the prime citation. It is not. I have spent hundreds of hrs looking for it. Instead I get IPCC quotes. I have read most of the early IPCC reports (unlike Brmbrm I guess) looking for the citation. Guess what... it is not there. Just hypotheses. That is a loooong way from fact.
Show of hands (votes for the hypothesis ) doesnot cut it scientifically. One ugly fact can change a beautiful theory no matter how many subscribe to it. The science iscorrupt. Sorry. You talk about big oil companies etc.. Greepeace rhetoric again. Scientist are corrupt too. They have mortgages to pay, research projects they want to fund.Their move thru the ranks usually depends on the number of papers printed etc. It all takes funding esp in science - expensive equipment, fieldtrips, students to fund etc. Where else to get the funding but the billion $ GW industry. NZ incl. Unlike Brmbrm, I have sat on all sides of this equation - provider of funds, applicant for funds and referee of Govt science funds. It is a game. Make no mistake, and they know how to play it. If you want to studythe sex life of an obscure ant , what funding pool do you have a chance in. Now tag 'with respect to climate change' and your funding pool just grew mega $s. Is this scientist likely to challenge the notion of AGW? Like thousands of others chasing the GW money trail - Billions of $s. Don't point the finger at oil companies.
Unlike Brmbrm, I have been involved in some climate researchfor NZ's past climate.
Brmbrm - find me the papers and I can subscribe to your view. I have spent ages looking for them - no luck so far.
So then we move to 'green' alternatives. brmbrm, do you know how many mega tonnes of planet earth are crushed/mined for rare earths to make the batteries, or how much CO2 is expended? And what to do with the batteries? And how to charge them - sustainably. Dam every river?
For me Hydrogen would be the answer. I doubt I will ever buy an EV - my conscience won't let me, but politics prevail. We all want to be seen to be green, even if it kills us. The energy equation for hydrogen has been the problem. Solar may fix that - if you are comfortable with a tank of hydrogen in your car. But we got to the moon 50 yrs ago, so should be able to solve the pesky issues that go with it.
is the science as setted as you would like to think Brmbrm?. No where near. The IPCC even rates the solar energy factor as 'largely unknown' or - 'poorly understood' I think is theirterm. the largest energy input into planet earth. The largest GHG- water vapour - BY A LOONG WAY. 70-80%. small changes in H2O have a LARGE effect on retained IR heat. The sun emits UV (short wavelength) which is radiated back (at night) as longer wavelength IR. H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than the fractional % CO2. That is why deserts get so cold at night.
So, Brmbrm, find me the papers - that should be at the top of every GW funded research paper, and I will subscribe to your view. Until then, the jury is out on my part.
regards
Alan
 
Possibly this may have an answer for you ?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" rel="nofollow - https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/" rel="nofollow - https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
 
 


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 8:52am
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:

OK, I wasn't going to post here- it is a fishing website, right?
I have a PhD in science. Brmbrm would call me a climate denier. Greepeace are very good at politicising stffand making labels. I would call myself agnostic. unlike most here (incl Brmbrm) I have spent ages looking for the quintessential science paper linking CO2 to global warming. It has to exist right? Like all great discoveries - Einsteins theory of relativity, Darwins theory of evolution, Watson and Cricks discovery of the duble helix (DNA). (my computer is doing weird **** - sorry - can't fix right now - bear with me)
This seminal paper should be at the top of all GW papers as the prime citation. It is not. I have spent hundreds of hrs looking for it. Instead I get IPCC quotes. I have read most of the early IPCC reports (unlike Brmbrm I guess) looking for the citation. Guess what... it is not there. Just hypotheses. That is a loooong way from fact.
Show of hands (votes for the hypothesis ) doesnot cut it scientifically. One ugly fact can change a beautiful theory no matter how many subscribe to it. The science iscorrupt. Sorry. You talk about big oil companies etc.. Greepeace rhetoric again. Scientist are corrupt too. They have mortgages to pay, research projects they want to fund.Their move thru the ranks usually depends on the number of papers printed etc. It all takes funding esp in science - expensive equipment, fieldtrips, students to fund etc. Where else to get the funding but the billion $ GW industry. NZ incl. Unlike Brmbrm, I have sat on all sides of this equation - provider of funds, applicant for funds and referee of Govt science funds. It is a game. Make no mistake, and they know how to play it. If you want to studythe sex life of an obscure ant , what funding pool do you have a chance in. Now tag 'with respect to climate change' and your funding pool just grew mega $s. Is this scientist likely to challenge the notion of AGW? Like thousands of others chasing the GW money trail - Billions of $s. Don't point the finger at oil companies.
Unlike Brmbrm, I have been involved in some climate researchfor NZ's past climate.
Brmbrm - find me the papers and I can subscribe to your view. I have spent ages looking for them - no luck so far.
So then we move to 'green' alternatives. brmbrm, do you know how many mega tonnes of planet earth are crushed/mined for rare earths to make the batteries, or how much CO2 is expended? And what to do with the batteries? And how to charge them - sustainably. Dam every river?
For me Hydrogen would be the answer. I doubt I will ever buy an EV - my conscience won't let me, but politics prevail. We all want to be seen to be green, even if it kills us. The energy equation for hydrogen has been the problem. Solar may fix that - if you are comfortable with a tank of hydrogen in your car. But we got to the moon 50 yrs ago, so should be able to solve the pesky issues that go with it.
is the science as setted as you would like to think Brmbrm?. No where near. The IPCC even rates the solar energy factor as 'largely unknown' or - 'poorly understood' I think is theirterm. the largest energy input into planet earth. The largest GHG- water vapour - BY A LOONG WAY. 70-80%. small changes in H2O have a LARGE effect on retained IR heat. The sun emits UV (short wavelength) which is radiated back (at night) as longer wavelength IR. H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than the fractional % CO2. That is why deserts get so cold at night.
So, Brmbrm, find me the papers - that should be at the top of every GW funded research paper, and I will subscribe to your view. Until then, the jury is out on my part.
regards
Alan


Hi Alan.
Agree with your words on EV's.
They are a touchy feely new age must have.
Batteries with man-made poisonous chemicals need to be made "AND" recycled.
Not energy efficient or environmentally friendly at all.
I also agree hydrogen is the way to go and I believe Hyundai and a few others are heading down that path.
Hydrogen/electric so only one battery required with I believe the only by-product being water.
Have been watching the history channel about lost villages and towns around the British/European coast line.
Many were lost to huge unexpected storms and some were just swamped by sea level rise.
All this before the Remuera tractor or coal driven industrial revolution ever tool place.
This will not be palatable, however, the only way to solve the Earths problem is a rapid and violent depopulation of the human race.
Nothing to do with global warming, that will happen anyway, as it is a natural part of the earths history.
I am talking species and resources.
The latest adds are telling us all to go vegetarian so we can halt the so called greenhouse gases of the beef industry.
Forests will still have to be cleared to sustain an entire world of vegetarians.
Nothing at all is mentioned about stopping human population growth.
Capitalism will not let human growth stop as it needs this growth to grow itself.
Before modern medicine/technology, the population was small and when the inevitable and natural climate change occurred, people could just pack up and move to another safer more suitable area.
We can no longer do this, hence we have people living in areas the ancients would not because they knew it was prone to natural disasters.
We see the results of this with ever increasing articles about the number of lives lost in these ancient no go no live areas.
Bottom line.
You get nothing for nothing and there is always a cost to be paid by someone or something somewhere.

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: Transformations
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 9:32am
Halleluja, was beginning to think there was no sanity out there. Thanks Muppet, V8, Alan and some others.

Those that believe "the science is settled" should really go to SpecSaversūü§ź

-------------
We don't know what we don't need till we've got it


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Transformations Transformations wrote:

Halleluja, was beginning to think there was no sanity out there. Thanks Muppet, V8, Alan and some others.

Those that believe "the science is settled" should really go to SpecSaversūü§ź
 
So let me get this correct .
 
We have NASA which is chock full of the some of the worlds leading climate scientists telling us we have a problem and then we have the big oil, energy companies and all the influence we know they have with politicians and they have the attitude " nothing to see here " [pun intended].. 
 
Tell me about Specsavers ???
 
Its the old adage.. follow the money.. the NASA scientists have nothing to gain yet they still keep telling us there is a problem, what is there motive ?.. Oil industry, i wonder what drives them ?? [excuse the pun] 


Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 11:20am
My prediction is that climate change, man-made or otherwise is going to kill off millions of primarily poor people in low-lying, developing countries. That is happening right now for a variety of reasons. Do we care? Yes, a bit, but not enough to actually do anything meaningful about it. Developed nations have the resources to adapt. Coastal land will be lost and there will be changes to our way life. Life will get harder and more expensive, and we won't be able to go on holiday to the pacific islands because they won't exist, but in general, we will just keep ticking along for a very long time. 


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 1:31pm
The big problem I have with most of the climate change "experts" is that they keep making predictions of impending disaster that always turn out to be wrong.  Not that long ago they were talking about covering the polar ice caps with black plastic to try and retain more of the suns heat to stave off the impending ice age that was coming.  Then it was global warming and by now we were all supposed to have been roasted, now it's climate change and it's all about wild weather events.  No wonder so many of us have become jaded and no longer listen to them.  Unfortunately it's like the boy who cried wolf, and if they ever do get it right hardly anyone will listen to them.

As for "what do the scientists have to gain", that's pretty obvious -millions of dollars in research funding, a cushy job and an income for life.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by reel crayze reel crayze wrote:

Originally posted by Transformations Transformations wrote:

Halleluja, was beginning to think there was no sanity out there. Thanks Muppet, V8, Alan and some others.

Those that believe "the science is settled" should really go to SpecSaversūü§ź

 
So let me get this correct .
 
We have NASA which is chock full of the some of the worlds leading climate scientists telling us we have a problem and then we have the big oil, energy companies and all the influence we know they have with politicians and they have the attitude " nothing to see here " [pun intended].. 
 
Tell me about Specsavers ???
 
Its the old adage.. follow the money.. the NASA scientists have nothing to gain yet they still keep telling us there is a problem, what is there motive ?.. Oil industry, i wonder what drives them ?? [excuse the pun] 


So if you are that passionate about the whole thing what you going to do?

I have this question many times to my mates even and they all still travel and consume more products than I do,

So really it is all just ironically hot air.


Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 2:10pm
Yep, it's like the middle class kids who FLY to South America or Africa to take part in conservation projects LOL


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 2:50pm
This is worth a watch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRTX71MHu8" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRTX71MHu8


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 3:18pm
And this one also...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9onutgSa7U4" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oNutgSa7U4


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 3:41pm
Originally posted by Kevin.S Kevin.S wrote:

The big problem I have with most of the climate change "experts" is that they keep making predictions of impending disaster that always turn out to be wrong.  Not that long ago they were talking about covering the polar ice caps with black plastic to try and retain more of the suns heat to stave off the impending ice age that was coming.  Then it was global warming and by now we were all supposed to have been roasted, now it's climate change and it's all about wild weather events.  No wonder so many of us have become jaded and no longer listen to them.  Unfortunately it's like the boy who cried wolf, and if they ever do get it right hardly anyone will listen to them.

As for "what do the scientists have to gain", that's pretty obvious -millions of dollars in research funding, a cushy job and an income for life.
 
It is a problem i agree that continual beat ups that "the world is going to melt" does the science no favours. Media beat up maybe ?
 
As for millions of dollars in research funding to be made and cushy jobs for life.. Nah a scientist is only as good as their last results. If NASA were getting it wrong so often i am sure Trump [and oil] would of stopped all the weather funding.


Posted By: Nick22009
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 4:20pm
Bring back the giant parrot I say Cool - subtropical South Island, now that would have been a treat!  

Guess they weren't able to sheet enough to keep the environment warm enough so they eventually died Cry


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by Catchelot Catchelot wrote:

This is worth a watch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRTX71MHu8" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRTX71MHu8
 
Yip he has credibilty  .... His organisation actually list him as an expert hydrologist not climate scientist..
 
https://www.desmogblog.com/jay-lehr" rel="nofollow - https://www.desmogblog.com/jay-lehr


Posted By: BananaBoat
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:00pm
I remember reading about 30yrs ago, in new age mags about the temperature fluctuation patterns this planet goes through over the thousands of years, something like every 4-600 years where the planet naturally heats up (like now, not talking about how people are helping out with what we are adding to it) then goes through a cooling off period.... also talked about pole shift
The pattern they found that bought about that publication was through findings from archaeologist, anthropology & other findings.
Funny thing tho, what caused the media sensation at the time was some of the indigenous people around the world had mapped out these predictions of the planet warming & cooling off centuries ago.
The scientists that agreed with these theories seemed to back this up as there was mentioned the universe is predictable threw mathematics
All way beyond me, but the pattern of planet behavior has been around for sometime, seems to now be controlled what is popular & whats not.... at least money has nothing to do with it haha


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:12pm
Wow, so i'm not the only one who thinks it's mostly hype.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:17pm
some have called it the great global wealth redistribution scam.
Seems N.Z gives $1.4 billion to the paris accord every year.
Imagine how that could be used here,dealing with our own pollution issues.




Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:25pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

some have called it the great global wealth redistribution scam.
Seems N.Z gives $1.4 billion to the paris accord every year.
Imagine how that could be used here,dealing with our own pollution issues.


I'd be happy if it were used toward the homeless issue.


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:29pm
NZ gives away money to people that don't need it. Our lovely adern gave the Clinton foundation millions for what?
Could have been spent in this country...on things that matter to us.

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:31pm
Yes homeless as well clutch

The Food police. U.N now wants sweeping powers to regulate how much meat you eat to save the planet.
Recently Germany has introduced 19% tax on meat.

This interview can be heard now on Climate depot.    climatedepot.com


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 5:48pm
I think just about every night especially on One News the past couple of weeks they have ran we must go vegetarian or eat lab meat story. 

Wealth redistribution is going on alright paid for by the working class of course. 


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 6:07pm
Wheres Leighton Smith when you need him??he does not buy in to this climate change B/s either

-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 6:20pm
LOL Podcasts pjc, quite good too. Did a climate one not so long ago.


 


Posted By: reel crayze
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 7:43pm
Ok i guess i am alone on this and i sure as hope i am wrong and you are correct as i worry for our future generations.
 
I will have one more attempt at convincing you.
 
As i said earlier I suck running a computer so bear with me pls.
 
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=576&ei=FcZPXeW4M4uGvQSSuKmAAw&q=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&oq=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&gs_l=img.12...8304.16813..19663...0.0..0.290.6376.0j3j26......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i10i24.lXvnrq-IVhQ&ved=0ahUKEwill6uCqPrjAhULQ48KHRJcCjAQ4dUDCAU#imgrc=AIEBovYcv2dJWM:&spf=1565509164047" rel="nofollow - https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=576&ei=FcZPXeW4M4uGvQSSuKmAAw&q=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&oq=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&gs_l=img.12...8304.16813..19663...0.0..0.290.6376.0j3j26......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i10i24.lXvnrq-IVhQ&ved=0ahUKEwill6uCqPrjAhULQ48KHRJcCjAQ4dUDCAU#imgrc=AIEBovYcv2dJWM:&spf=1565509164047
 
Now go to Catchalots "catche of the day".. spot the difference ? you dont need to go to Specsavers to notice there is a dramitic difference.
This is conclusive proof the Earth was cooler in the past as bathing suits now are much skimpier due to the warmer weather ?
 
 


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by reel crayze reel crayze wrote:


Ok i guess i am alone on this and i sure as hope i am wrong and you are correct as i worry for our future generations.
 
I will have one more attempt at convincing you.
 
As i said earlier I suck running a computer so bear with me pls.
 
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=576&ei=FcZPXeW4M4uGvQSSuKmAAw&q=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&oq=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&gs_l=img.12...8304.16813..19663...0.0..0.290.6376.0j3j26......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i10i24.lXvnrq-IVhQ&ved=0ahUKEwill6uCqPrjAhULQ48KHRJcCjAQ4dUDCAU#imgrc=AIEBovYcv2dJWM:&spf=1565509164047" rel="nofollow - https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=576&ei=FcZPXeW4M4uGvQSSuKmAAw&q=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&oq=old+fashione+d+swimming+suits&gs_l=img.12...8304.16813..19663...0.0..0.290.6376.0j3j26......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i10i24.lXvnrq-IVhQ&ved=0ahUKEwill6uCqPrjAhULQ48KHRJcCjAQ4dUDCAU#imgrc=AIEBovYcv2dJWM:&spf=1565509164047
 
Now go to Catchalots "catche of the day".. spot the difference ? you dont need to go to Specsavers to notice there is a dramitic difference.
This is conclusive proof the Earth was cooler in the past as bathing suits now are much skimpier due to the warmer weather ?
 
 



Mmmmmm.
Nothing to do with the loosening of moral values/beliefs and the rise of more liberal ones?
Must be the weather aye.
Unless I have missed the deliberate satire in your post?

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: krow
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 9:37pm
Your second link didn't work catchelot
Reel crayze I liked Your last post but just because the chap telling you uneasy truths isn't "qualified" doesn't make the words less truthful. Mind you some of that was waffle. 


Posted By: whippersnappyr
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 8:04am
I am also a scientist by training. I am a sceptic because the subject is so politicised on both sides. A few years ago I looked into it and my understanding is that the 97% of all scientists agree statement is actually derived from a review of climate papers where the authors Looked for keywords only and doesn’t actually mean what a lay person thinks it does. More here if you are interested

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980" rel="nofollow - https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

The problem is our understanding is informed by computer models that are extremely complex and continually updated with actual data as their predictions differ from what actually occurs. The level of science we have available is not as hard as most scientists would like and the changes we would have to make on a global level are mostly unpalatable.

Like others have said it is probably a moot point. The chance that collectively we will make changes significant enough to influence the global climate irrespective of whether we are actually in a ‚Äėclimate emergency‚Äô or not is close to zero


Posted By: feeder
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 9:40am
A billion trees will fix it, yeah right.
 
Cheers


-------------
The only bar to frequent is the Kawhia Bar


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 9:57am
Trees produce methane


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 11:12am
Bottom line.. who cares why I can now crop summer veggies thru to April 4/5 weeks later.. and now plant out end Aug..5 to 6 weeks earlier.
 And this has been slowly getting more over the last 30/40 yrs of having a garden.
 Tuis have been acrobatic matting before the closes t week of the yr now... 5 to 6 weeks ealy. And they are not the only animal species.
The CO2 content (doesnt matter why) is getting up to levels that historically caused major negative disruption to life on this planet. (extinction total and limited of many species.

So what do I care?  zilch
Why? Cause if I think about the next 50 yrs or so, and the social implications of flooding, storms.. the potential cost that no government(tax and rate payerr) can afford to do anything about without closing hospitals, schools, and super , benefits all going.
 Thats an economic disaster way beyond Greece just a few yrs ago.. without an environment disaster on top.

As to governments / councils declaring an environment/ weather change disaster... What utter self righteous PC political grandstanding  BS... to make it look like they are doing something significant
 A disaster is declared after the 'earthquake/ flood'
The weather/ crop/ flooding etc disaster has yet to happen...

In my books the weather is changing, in an opposite direction to the pre dark ages days...and uit is far beyond the point of no return now..
 The thought of the future of our grandchildren , and that it is to late to stop anything is scarry ....so I just get on with life while we can.

 Guys talk about the weather changes in the 30s,, yep there was a big  spike...
 The changes over the last few 1000 yrs .. yep been a few spikes.. eg the dark ages..

And in each of these social, and economic break down , along with crop failures, unemployment, famine etc all been the result.

The arguments as to why, or has happened before...
red herrings..
What is important is what is the result in a decade or so?



Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by krow krow wrote:

Your second link didn't work catchelot
Reel crayze I liked Your last post but just because the chap telling you uneasy truths isn't "qualified" doesn't make the words less truthful. Mind you some of that was waffle. 

Go to Youtube and search for Jay Lehr - the slide show I showed Trump

I can't get the link to work on the forum.


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 9:15pm
Two recent points of interest .

90 leading Italian scientists have signed a petition 
Man made global warming unproven hypothesis. Catastrophic predictions are not realistic.

In Finland. Turku university. Practically no evidence for man made climate change.
Not surprisingly neither has appeared (to my knowledge) in our own MSM.


Posted By: Big Weta
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 11:09pm
The thing I always wonder is, did humans cause the last ice age to end somehow or does climate change predate human existence on earth? The argument has so many conflicting & biased facts both ways. If any study is performed with a predetermined outcome in mind by those doing the research, facts supporting the viewpoint of the researcher will be found.
More importantly, if the water levels rise, does that mean more fishing spots available?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2019 at 5:55am
No way humans caused the last ice age to retreat. But humans did almost go extinct in the middle of the last ice age. So I guess the bigger question is will global warming prevent the formation of another ice age? And is that a good thing...my opinion yes!


Posted By: Titahi
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2019 at 6:27am
Ohhh look
5 or 6 of the 21st century’s sharpest minds huddled in a circle, in a forum section of fishing.net.nz picking holes in 80-90 % of the worlds climate scientists consensus. Occasionally glancing over their shoulders to confirm the conspiracy theory that wealth redistribution by the dark state continues unabated...


-------------
"I love standing by the ocean and just knowing what its for"


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2019 at 7:17am
Your missing the point Titahi, the scientists can rabbit on all they like but they still jump in the their jets and vehicles like the rest of us. They will have bigger carbon footprints than us.

If it is ok and good enough for them then it is for all of us. And you don't need a huge IQ to figure that out.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2019 at 7:32am
Oh we have alll forgotten about the chem trails .

-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2019 at 8:11am
  97 % of all snapper indentify as Gurnard.


Posted By: Marko 44
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 1:45am
Well the media is pretty biase when it comes to climate change. When other factors such as the earths magnetic fields weakening and sun cycles aren't even considered when the IPCC makes its headlines.
 Unfortunately in New Zealand, we are prone to media brain wash.
 So here is an an article you won't see at a green party forum.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

For anyone who wants a balanced view.

Save the whitebait fishermen


Posted By: whippersnappyr
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 7:18am
Marko I’m a man made climate change sceptic but still the first thing I did was go to the actual paper the authors wrote, noticed it was published in a non peer review setting and that the number of references were small. This immediately raises some red flags.

Next I read the article you linked to and noticed it mentions some of the same criticisms.

Sorry not compelling


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 10:23am
I wasc reading a book by Bellamy back in the 80s. Was regarding evolution , not climate change (or warming).
Had a great section on Rotorua and enzimes evolving to ambea etc..
 As a aside note in everything his comments on over the ages, regardless if man about, how evolution had to basically start off again after climatic changes where temps have increased. which all related to C content in the atmosphere. Be it volcanic activity, or whatever.
 Then as these primitive life die, build up, get buried, sea life and sea beds get buried, more advanced evolution is able to take place again.
Its all about evolution progress related to atmospheric C content.
 Now lets say some freak of nature suddenly breaks open these massive stores of C that has be drawn out of the atmosphere, and put back....basically a reversal of the essential element that allowed higher evolution to take place...then  things get rather tricky for the life that has evolved.

Its basic 1+1=2 maths.
 Now the question is , has enough stored C been dug up, put into the atmosphere to effect how the current advanced plant and animal life forms survival?
 And IF not enough has been dug up yet, when will enough to weather and temps?

But again its not what causes the increase in C, freons, hydrocarbons (methane etc)
Its that they are increasing and if they do its not if, its when does it effect life on earth (again)

All we need is another explosion like Taupo, anywhere in the world, which was only 700 odd yrs ago to tip things over.

But like I said before.. its all over...
Gases have got to the stag to enough the earth to self perpetuate its own warming, and further gas increase regardless of what heart rubbing feel good crap we now do.
 The permafrost of the tundra releasing gases and burning, causing more defrosting...just one of many examples around the world.


Posted By: Marko 44
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 12:29pm
Thanks whipper
In regards to the peer review there is this

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8" rel="nofollow - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 From the Japanese scientists who happen to agree with the Finnish scientists.
Broken down into plain English means
""The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

So what I make of this, is climate change is effected by quite a few different variables.
Sure I will agree pumping oil out of the ground and releasing all that CO2 into the atmosphere can't be that good for the planet. But for the scientific authourity to not include things like a weakening magnetic field and the inverse increase in cosmic rays. The cosmic rays then have an effect on storms and warming. To not include this information because they don't realize the implications is like my tomatoes are deformed because they didn't get enough water, when in fact they might not have got enough potassium, or maybe its calcium or they have had to much nitrogen. 


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 1:05pm
Taupo last erupted 1800yrs ago.

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: Mr Moritz
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 1:18pm
I believe some NZ newspapers have begun reporting the daily increase in Co2 levels in NZ. As measured by NIWA near Wellington.
Granny Herald has not started reporting it though.


Posted By: Fish Addict
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 2:25pm
This is what happens when the Greens infiltrate your local council. A recent job vacancy advertisement.
I can only be thankful that living in Perth I know that the rates I pay aren't contributing to this persons wages.

Climate Emergency Officer
Yarra City Council - Melbourne
Permanent Full Time (Flexible)
Band 6 $87,105.55 ‚Äď $94,943.91 + Super + RDO

The City of Yarra has a proud history of environmental action and leadership. Yarra was one of the first local governments in the world to declare a climate emergency, recognising urgent action is required by all. We are now employing our first Climate Emergency Officer, to help respond to the climate emergency across the municipality and within the organisation.

More specifically, the position will:
‚ÄĘ     Lead the design and delivery of key engagement, behaviour change, and mobilisation campaigns related to climate emergency, to increase long-term buy-in and action across Yarra.
‚ÄĘ     Design, deliver, and/or promote climate emergency information, programs and events in Yarra, to increase awareness and action.
‚ÄĘ     Work in partnership with the community, key partners and stakeholders, supporting action on the climate emergency, and actively participate in joint sustainability projects.
‚ÄĘ     Support the delivery of staff engagement programs to increase and embed climate emergency awareness and action within the organisation.
‚ÄĘ     Investigate, prepare, and support applications for relevant grant programs to secure funds to enable delivery of climate emergency action and engagement programs.
‚ÄĘ     Support the ongoing delivery of Yarra‚Äôs Climate Emergency Plan (in development).

The climate emergency is fast-paced, growing global movement. We are seeking a passionate candidate who has relevant understanding and experience in developing and implementing community sustainability campaigns and projects, strong communication skills, and a demonstrated ability to undertake complex projects with many stakeholders.
Yarra city council is a dynamic, progressive, and sustainable organisation. We pride ourselves on our diversity and aim to make a positive difference in people’s lives.
For further information see the Position Description below or contact Michael Oke, Sustainability Unit Manager on (03) 9205 5723.
100388 - Climate Emergency Officer - Position Description.pdf
Applications close on 9 August 2019
In your application, the selection panel will assess your CV against the technical skills, abilities, and qualifications of the Position Description as well as your separate responses to the Key Selection Criteria.
*This position is subject to satisfactory Working With Children Check prior to commencement. Pre-employment checks are not used by Yarra City Council to prevent any applicant from applying for this position. Each application will be considered on its merits.

Yarra City Council is committed to being a child safe organisation and supports flexible and accessible working arrangements for all. This includes people with a disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, culturally, religiously and linguistically diverse people, young people, older people, women, and people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer. We draw pride and strength from our diversity, remain open to new approaches and actively foster an inclusive workplace that celebrates the contribution made by all our people.


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 4:15pm
Until the cooling cycle comes back around


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by Mr Moritz Mr Moritz wrote:

I believe some NZ newspapers have begun reporting the daily increase in Co2 levels in NZ. As measured by NIWA near Wellington.
Granny Herald has not started reporting it though.
Well if they do they'll charge you $2.50 just to read about it.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 4:29pm
And people say it is not an Industry.

We must have similar folks in the Super City council as my mother in law is part of the Auckland City group. She got a Climate change thing that read like a fantasy story to her.


Posted By: Mr Moritz
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 4:45pm
NIWA link     https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements" rel="nofollow - https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 5:10pm
Yeah 400 ppm is nothing in as far as historical levels go. 900 ppm in the Permian and and an average of 1800 ppm during the Mesozoic Era. Mammals thrived in levels if 500 ppm in the Paleogene. More C02 does not mean the end of life.


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Yeah 400 ppm is nothing in as far as historical levels go. 900 ppm in the Permian and and an average of 1800 ppm during the Mesozoic Era. Mammals thrived in levels if 500 ppm in the Paleogene. More C02 does not mean the end of life.

A mediium sized meeting room full of people can have 2000ppm, submarines operate at 5000ppm, no one gets sick from extra CO2.

Industrial glass/greenhouses emit 1500-2000ppm and the plants thrive on it!

CO2 is good.Clap


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 6:05pm
Haha and that is why I do aircon and ventilation!


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 7:29pm
Below150ppm plants cannot photosynthesise and grow so no food to support the population.
Carbon in the world is finite ... we cannot make any more only release it.
Oceans are the biggest store of carbon dioxide - colder waters store more.
Every year crustaceans are stealing from the ocean store for their shells as calcium carbonate and not releasing it back.
We got down to nearly 200ppm before man during the industrial revolution started releasing it back so now its near 400ppm and the optimum for plant growth is greater than 1200ppm 
The increase in co2 can be seen in satellite images showing an increase in global greening taken over a few decades.
  


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 7:46pm
Everytime you start the car all the plants in the garden whisper a little thankyou.


Posted By: snapperdave
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2019 at 9:43pm
It's good to see there's others out there who aren't convinced about the climate science being "settled". Pretty well all the guys I come in contact with socially and through work think it's BS. I'm no scientist, but have watched a lot of stuff on history / discovery channels and you tube about the cycles of heating & cooling of the planet (and another planet nearby where the polar ice caps have also recently started shrinking) and think there's a lot more to it than the simplistic garbage being forced down our throats by Jacindarella & co. Solar cycles of the sun have a lot to do with it. CO2 levels rise & fall cyclically as well, possibly due to the ocean temperature cycles, volcanic activity and a little bit of our influence. 
Taxing the s#%t out of us is definitely not going to fix it, or "stop climate change" as the govt keep telling us. 
What I can't believe is the lack of articles / opinions you see in the mainstream media exploring the alternative opinions which are out there. Anybody who dares to have a contrary opinion is immediately dismissed as a "climate change denier". 
I recently completed a survey on Stuff which asked peoples opinions about their climate change coverage, telling them I thought their coverage lacked balance. In the survey results https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113711124/we-asked-about-climate-change-coverage-and-got-15000-responses" rel="nofollow - https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113711124/we-asked-about-climate-change-coverage-and-got-15000-responses  they completely dismissed anyone who asked for balanced reporting as members of the Flat Earth Society or "denialists". 

We'd better be careful or soon they'll be burning us as witches..........


Posted By: whippersnappyr
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 7:51am
Originally posted by Marko 44 Marko 44 wrote:

Thanks whipper
In regards to the peer review there is this

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8" rel="nofollow - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 From the Japanese scientists who happen to agree with the Finnish scientists.
Broken down into plain English means
"<span style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."</span>
<span style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
</span>
<span style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">So what I make of this, is climate change is effected by quite a few different variables.</span>
[COLOR=#333333" face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]<span style="font-size: 14px;]Sure I will agree pumping oil out of the ground and releasing all that CO2 into the atmosphere can't be that good for the planet. But for the scientific authourity to not include things like a weakening magnetic field and the inverse increase in cosmic rays. The cosmic rays then have an effect on storms and warming. To not include this information because they don't realize the implications is like my tomatoes are deformed because they didn't get enough water, when in fact they might not have got enough potassium, or maybe its calcium or they have had to much nitrogen. </span>[/COLOR]


Marko your explanation of what it means obviously comes from some anti climate change website as none of it is in the paper you reference. The paper makes no mention of the IPCC for example. It is about the last geomagnetic reversal which was about 800,000 years ago. This has nothing to do with the current debate such as it is on climate change


Posted By: Marko 44
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 8:48am
"
Marko your explanation of what it means obviously comes from some anti climate change website as none of it is in the paper you reference. The paper makes no mention of the IPCC for example. It is about the last geomagnetic reversal which was about 800,000 years ago. This has nothing to do with the current debate such as it is on climate change"

No it does not come from anti climate change website
It is compiled from a few different sites, talking about scientific reports.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm" rel="nofollow - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
 Again
Last time I checked science daily wasn't an anti climate change website
"""The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."
Professor Hyodo wrote the peer reviewed paper about the magnetic field weakening and its effect on weather based on real history on the earth.
 It takes time for the magnetic field to strengthen then weaken so that is what that is about.
 Unlike the IPCC which has been making predictions that have been wrong so many times. 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 9:16am
Yeah 400 ppm is nothing in as far as historical levels go. 900 ppm in the Permian and and an average of 1800 ppm during the Mesozoic Era. Mammals thrived in levels if 500 ppm in the Paleogene. More C02 does not mean the end of life.

But it does mean a huge extinction rate.
 And what survives is not very happy

This will not wipe out humans, just make them very uncomfortable for a while, then with a famines and flooding etc , wipe then start to wipe them out in prone areas.
 Oh thats right we already have that in prone areas...at an increasing rate.
As that rate increases, the cost to rebuild / support for the rest become too much in time and economy
The cold snap back in the 1300s is a good illustration.


Posted By: Fraser Hocks
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 10:18am
Ah the internet, a place intended so we can share the knowledge of the world, yet we use it as a place to argue with on another LOL

Does climate change?  Well yes.   Is it caused by humans....I very much doubt it.    Should we all be doing more to care about the environment and cause less harm to the environment.... YES!     All the warming hype is designed to attempt to stop stupid people that cant think for themselves, doing less harm to our environment.....hopefullyUnhappy

Why is it that the ones always flipping out about armageddon due to the latest climate report they have read on the internet, are always the ones with multiple kids running around.   Does no one realize that producing more and more people is THE biggest issue we all face.  Stop population growth for love of god!  

And if you don't believe in conspiracies then explain to me why all governments encourage population growth, while they keep bringing in more and more polices around saving the environment, fully in the knowledge that population growth is THE biggest impact on the environment. 


Posted By: Fraser Hocks
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 10:20am
Originally posted by snapperdave snapperdave wrote:

We'd better be careful or soon they'll be burning us as witches..........

Your not wrong there Dave.  Remember we are dealing with the mob mentality here!  Wink


Posted By: waynorth
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 11:31am
A timely article from  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4" rel="nofollow - Nature . 

As expected from an article in one of the world's leading scientific journals it makes for pretty heavy reading, but this one from public access science site  https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-contrarians-get-49-percent-more-media-than-leading-scientists/?fbclid=IwAR1iRttytJdNN9n6IiwB3nwVSekqK5dRl38vYApPNZ-IOo8AzLMXpOxXjHs" rel="nofollow - IFLScience  summarises it quite nicely.

The referenced  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers" rel="nofollow - Guardian article is a few years old now, but makes for interesting reading too.


-------------
treat fish like fish


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 3:11pm
The Guardian is a daily laugh regarding climate change, they pretty much diss any carbon producing industry. But you can't touch travel / tourism, oh no because it is what they love to do. Apparently air travel only produces 4 percent of C02 emissions but as I have pointed out numerous times that is only the start of tourism C02 emissions. Start adding up after you touch down, especially here in NZ. How many of those numerous motorhomes are electric?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:


Yeah 400 ppm is nothing in as far as historical levels go. 900 ppm in
the Permian and and an average of 1800 ppm during the Mesozoic Era.
Mammals thrived in levels if 500 ppm in the Paleogene. More C02 does not
mean the end of life.

But it does mean a huge extinction rate.
 And what survives is not very happy

This will not wipe out humans, just make them very uncomfortable for a while, then with a famines and flooding etc , wipe then start to wipe them out in prone areas.
 Oh thats right we already have that in prone areas...at an increasing rate.
As that rate increases, the cost to rebuild / support for the rest become too much in time and economy
The cold snap back in the 1300s is a good illustration.


Well we don't know Steps, how many scenarios you could put through a computer and get differing results.
I do know for a fact one way or another Earths climate will change and all human activities is just another page on the planets history. All I know is I don't have the sense of impending doom and anxiety a lot of people seem to have over it. I find it strange.

The best solution is obvious and it is a big effort from a national agency to move us quicker into new greener techs. The obvious country to enable this is still the USA.


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 3:39pm

Is it a real personal hardship on any of you to make some small effort towards generally being a little "greener"?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 3:45pm
Rozboon, how green do you want us to be?

All the reports say ditch carbon tech now which is impossible.



Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:02pm
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Rozboon, how green do you want us to be?

All the reports say ditch carbon tech now which is impossible.


Just a tiny bit more than you were yesterday.

The attitudes of "it won't do anything" or "screw it, there are others doing much worse" are so entirely defeatist that it makes my head spin.

This is one of those things where it's like... if the "we are causing climate change" people are right, then good, we did something, and if they're wrong, then oh well, at least we made things better. Whereas if you're in the "it's all a hoax" camp, and you're wrong, then you probably contributed more to whatever downfall it causes than the other camp did.

One side seems to have a good outcome either way, the other doesn't.


EDIT: I get it, people don't like being told that what they're doing is, in some way, wrong. Just look at commercial fishermen and whitebaiters when they are told they are contributing to the extinction of their resource, they get super defensive and all the usual tropes (such as "yeah but xyz is bad too") come out.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:12pm
But in this brave new "fairer" world green for one person might mean taking only one less flight to the USA this year as an example.
But still flying say another four times, I have a few mates who do this regularly.

And if what they are saying is true about dropping C02 as quick as possible my above example is frankly not good enough.

But we banned plastic bags so there we can feel better.


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

But in this brave new "fairer" world green for one person might mean taking only one less flight to the USA this year as an example.
But still flying say another four times, I have a few mates who do this regularly.

And if what they are saying is true about dropping C02 as quick as possible my above example is frankly not good enough.

But we banned plastic bags so there we can feel better.

I hear you on the "perhaps this is all futile" front, but does that mean we just go "**** it" and carry on exactly the same?


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:20pm
Originally posted by Rozboon Rozboon wrote:

I get it, people don't like being told that what they're doing is, in some way, wrong.

In particular we don't like being told WE need to change what we're doing by a bunch of hypocritical do-gooders who think they are so high and mighty.

For example Google just held a climate change conference, where the attendees jetted in on over 140 private jets from around the world to talk about how we need to lower emissions.  Or governments bringing in emissions taxes that put industries out of business.  Then we keep using the stuff they used to make locally, but now we ship it half way round the world to us from a country that makes it in a less environmentally friendly way than we used to.  But that's great because we can say "look, we lowered our carbon emissions", never mind that in doing so we increased net world emissions.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:21pm
For people who are just living a pretty ordinary life without all the bells and whistles, well yeah.


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:21pm
Just to be clear, that wasn't aimed at anyone here.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:39pm
Originally posted by Fraser Hocks Fraser Hocks wrote:

Ah the internet, a place intended so we can share the knowledge of the world, yet we use it as a place to argue with on another LOL

Does climate change?  Well yes.   Is it caused by humans....I very much doubt it.    Should we all be doing more to care about the environment and cause less harm to the environment.... YES!     All the warming hype is designed to attempt to stop stupid people that cant think for themselves, doing less harm to our environment.....hopefullyUnhappy

Why is it that the ones always flipping out about armageddon due to the latest climate report they have read on the internet, are always the ones with multiple kids running around.   Does no one realize that producing more and more people is THE biggest issue we all face.  Stop population growth for love of god!  

And if you don't believe in conspiracies then explain to me why all governments encourage population growth, while they keep bringing in more and more polices around saving the environment, fully in the knowledge that population growth is THE biggest impact on the environment. 



As mentioned by myself in an earlier post, a rapid human depopulation is the only answer to save many species and ecosystems.
It will do nothing for climate change as that is a natural phenomena which has been happening since the beginning of time.
It is simply because of the population and mass instant media that we hear about things quickly and events have huge death tolls and destruction.
We now live in areas the ancients did not for that very reason.
Climatic events made them dangerous.
As for Governments halting births, it will never happen as capitalism, especially the version we have now will not allow it.
It needs a growing population to grow.
China tried it and realised it was economic suicide so scrapped the idea,
Never fear, one way or another there will be a huge cull.
It will either be via nature or mans penchant for stupidity.

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2019 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by Kevin.S Kevin.S wrote:

Originally posted by Rozboon Rozboon wrote:

I get it, people don't like being told that what they're doing is, in some way, wrong.

In particular we don't like being told WE need to change what we're doing by a bunch of hypocritical do-gooders who think they are so high and mighty.

For example Google just held a climate change conference, where the attendees jetted in on over 140 private jets from around the world to talk about how we need to lower emissions. 

100% on that, nothing leaves a bad taste quite like a good dose of hypocrisy. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a crap way to motivate people.

My version of things is that one person/group doing things badly doesn't necessarily give everyone else a pass to do it to. The painful example of this currently, as you highlighted, is China, where the economy is booming on the back of environmental ruination and, apparently, the exploitation of a lot of humans. But we supposedly know better, and we seem to be in a position where we can afford, individually, to do better, so perhaps we should give it at least a little bit of a go.



Print Page | Close Window