Select to expand quotepetermac33 said.. 6mm a year is 60mm in a decade. 60mm is 6cm. In 50 years that is a 30cm increase in the sea!!!
It's worse than that Pete, the rate is accelerating, it's 6mm at the moment, who knows what the rate will be in 5 decades.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
I'll argue the National Socialists weren't Socialist........Of course I will. No thinking person could. How could anyone argue the Nazis were Socialists.
My politics are in no way comparable.
You?
No way comparable. None at all?
Really? No way?
You're pro-capitalism, don't think all citizens should be treated equally or have a job or enough to eat, people should be able to profit off war, pensions should be reduced, big companies shouldn't share their profits with their workers, higher eduction and health care should be only for the privileged and wealthy...
Jeez your socialism sounds like a real dick.
Gone a bit quiet there, log jam. Maybe you missed it or went and compared your politics to the National Socialists and got a wee shock, eh?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
I'll argue the National Socialists weren't Socialist........Of course I will. No thinking person could. How could anyone argue the Nazis were Socialists.
My politics are in no way comparable.
You?
No way comparable. None at all?
Really? No way?
You're pro-capitalism, don't think all citizens should be treated equally or have a job or enough to eat, people should be able to profit off war, pensions should be reduced, big companies shouldn't share their profits with their workers, higher eduction and health care should be only for the privileged and wealthy...
Jeez your socialism sounds like a real dick.
Gone a bit quiet there, log jam. Maybe you missed it or went and compared your politics to the National Socialists and got a wee shock, eh?
I was trying to let your comment go through to the keeper. I just think the idea that Socialists.......like me, are, in fact National Socialists or Nazis is just a teensy, weensy bit ****ed.
Let's just pretend that you never said it and go back to arguing about Greta or something else.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
I was trying to let your comment go through to the keeper. I just think the idea that Socialists.......like me, are, in fact National Socialists or Nazis is just a teensy, weensy bit ****ed.
Let's just pretend that you never said it and go back to arguing about Greta or something else.
Oh there's a surprise -- you got that ass-backward. Again.
"I just think" ... clearly -- no you don't 
"Socialists [..] are in fact National Socialists"
Backwards. You're thinking that Australia is in fact Queensland.
The point is that National Socialists are actually ... socialists. (this is where history comes in)
And that despite your enthusiastic protestations to the contrary, you actually share a lot of your politics with ... the Nazis. How inconvenient that must be for you
Read the entire National Socialist German Worker's Party's 25 point manifesto for yourself.
Go on, read it. I'll wait.
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
I doubt it, because there are various predictions. Because they are predictions.
There are varying degrees of the effects of a warming atmosphere, and ocean. It is impossible to predict with any degree of high accuracy, and everyone openly admits and acknowledges that, because there are so many variables. Fluid dynamics is already hard enough without incomplete initial state, because we can't measure every atom everywhere. And then there are cascading effects to consider, and lots of them.
When you add all of these incomplete variables up you don't get a clear picture. But you do get some picture.
Estimating the effects of global warming is a little like estimating traffic. You know it's a Monday, and not a public or school holiday, and your usual Monday morning route to work should take around 30 minutes.
Now, this is something you might do every day, along the exact same route, for the last 20 years. Yet you won't be able to predict it exactly. Depending on any number of factors like just missing a light, to an accident holding up a lane, you might only be able to say "it will take between 25 and 35 minutes".
It's the same with global warming. Nobody can say with total confidence that "this is exactly what will happen". We can only average out an estimation. "It will take approximately 30 minutes to get to work. It might take 25 if we're lucky."
Now global warming is far, far, far harder than estimating getting to work. Of course.
The thing is that all the models point to man made climate change. We've known about greenhouse gases (and there are more than the popular CO2 and H2O) for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It is the most proven thing in science.
"Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?"
Many of them have turned out to be underestimations. More and more climate scientists are saying "There is no hope now. Give up. Don't bother trying anymore". What can you say to this?
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
More and more climate scientists are saying "There is no hope now. Give up. Don't bother trying anymore". What can you say to this?
I'm going to say BS. Source?
With a predicted two and a half foot rise in sea level in the next 50 years ( and this is a optimistic or lower prediction according to decrepit) folks living on the coast or adjacent to rivers better have insurance!
We should currently be seeing a massive drop in coastal property values values. Are we?
With a two and a half foot rise in sea level what you are talking about is a pure unadulterated worldwide catastrophe. No ifs or buts.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said.>>>folks living on the coast or adjacent to rivers better have insurance!
Now you are dreaming, no insurance company will insure against sea level rise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Insurance is about risk factor, so you can get fire insurance, because the risk of everybody in a fire prone area getting burnt out is something they can work out and set a premium for. Living close to a tidal area and getting inundated, is a different thing, because it will affect everybody there.
Councils are already thinking about sea walls, to protect important areas, (like Leighton).
Peter, it appears people are a bit apathetic, and hoping science can get us out of the mess. And don't belief the forecast, (possibly because people like you are telling them it won't happen)
So do you really want this on your conscience?
Denying climate change could cause untold misery. If you don't have positive proof that the oceans won't rise, keep your opinions to yourself.
Yes our property has dropped in value considerably, buts probably due to the general slump in house prices
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
The rise in sea level is straight line - about 25cms per century. Storm surges can be several METRES, so an inch or 2 does not matter. Also, just low pressure makes the sea rise up to 2ft........where Henry Hudson landed on his bay, is now 20kms from the water. Ostia, Rome's port, now kms from the sea. Ditto Pevensey Castle, where William the conqueror landed, now several MILES from the sea. Some rising sea level, eh?
"The Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, and was a time of prosperity. Why should our slight warming be doom and gloom? Absurd!"
The alarmists have got it precisely backwards - is a Tony Robbins technique - say the complete opposite of reality.
Polar bears love less ice. They do not eat in Summer anyway! LESS storms in latter part of 20th century cf first half. Several papers on it.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; bad scientists; cheats. Our Govs wasting billions on this CO2 guff.
CO2 is GOOD. Plants grow faster AND use less water. (the stomata more closed); longer growing seasons; more exotic crops; lower heating bills; less deaths (cold kills 20 times more than hot)
Plant growth up 50% since 1950. Average; pine trees MUCH more increase.
Sadly the media reckons GW popular, so relentlessly cater to it. Like cheap whores, selling themselves and heedless of the damage. Swine. CBC, BBC, ABC all the same, trotting out garbage.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..petermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
The rise in sea level is straight line - about 25cms per century. Storm surges can be several METRES, so an inch or 2 does not matter. Also, just low pressure makes the sea rise up to 2ft........where Henry Hudson landed on his bay, is now 20kms from the water. Ostia, Rome's port, now kms from the sea. Ditto Pevensey Castle, where William the conqueror landed, now several MILES from the sea. Some rising sea level, eh?
"The Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, and was a time of prosperity. Why should our slight warming be doom and gloom? Absurd!"
The alarmists have got it precisely backwards - is a Tony Robbins technique - say the complete opposite of reality.
Polar bears love less ice. They do not eat in Summer anyway! LESS storms in latter part of 20th century cf first half. Several papers on it.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; bad scientists; cheats. Our Govs wasting billions on this CO2 guff.
CO2 is GOOD. Plants grow faster AND use less water. (the stomata more closed); longer growing seasons; more exotic crops; lower heating bills; less deaths (cold kills 20 times more than hot)
Plant growth up 50% since 1950. Average; pine trees MUCH more increase.
Sadly the media reckons GW popular, so relentlessly cater to it. Like cheap whores, selling themselves and heedless of the damage. Swine. CBC, BBC, ABC all the same, trotting out garbage.
Agree ...
Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW .... a more pragmatic sensible approach vs the hysteria whipped up by one eyed IPCC shills for left wing political / power / money / control gain - worlds gonna end in 12 years nutcases etc .... Really hoping there's a Greta backlash and some of the scientists who have kept their heads down , start standing up and being heard .... Why not start throwing all those wasted trillions $$$ planned for carbon emission schemes into ACTUAL F#$$ING R&D of new technologies that will help us transition a gradually away from fossil .... like thorium molten salt reactors etc ... battery r&d storage etc .... , and help fund better protection for communities at risk from flooding etc from SINKING land , or crap sea defences .... OR should we just react to every hysterical story line whipped up by climate armageddonist's ....
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..kilo54 said..petermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
The rise in sea level is straight line - about 25cms per century. Storm surges can be several METRES, so an inch or 2 does not matter. Also, just low pressure makes the sea rise up to 2ft........where Henry Hudson landed on his bay, is now 20kms from the water. Ostia, Rome's port, now kms from the sea. Ditto Pevensey Castle, where William the conqueror landed, now several MILES from the sea. Some rising sea level, eh?
"The Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, and was a time of prosperity. Why should our slight warming be doom and gloom? Absurd!"
The alarmists have got it precisely backwards - is a Tony Robbins technique - say the complete opposite of reality.
Polar bears love less ice. They do not eat in Summer anyway! LESS storms in latter part of 20th century cf first half. Several papers on it.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; bad scientists; cheats. Our Govs wasting billions on this CO2 guff.
CO2 is GOOD. Plants grow faster AND use less water. (the stomata more closed); longer growing seasons; more exotic crops; lower heating bills; less deaths (cold kills 20 times more than hot)
Plant growth up 50% since 1950. Average; pine trees MUCH more increase.
Sadly the media reckons GW popular, so relentlessly cater to it. Like cheap whores, selling themselves and heedless of the damage. Swine. CBC, BBC, ABC all the same, trotting out garbage.
Agree ...
Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW .... a more pragmatic sensible approach vs the hysteria whipped up by one eyed IPCC shills for left wing political / power / money / control gain - worlds gonna end in 12 years nutcases etc .... Really hoping there's a Greta backlash and some of the scientists who have kept their heads down , start standing up and being heard .... Why not start throwing all those wasted trillions $$$ planned for carbon emission schemes into ACTUAL F#$$ING R&D of new technologies that will help us transition a gradually away from fossil .... like thorium molten salt reactors etc ... battery r&d storage etc .... , and help fund better protection for communities at risk from flooding etc from SINKING land , or crap sea defences .... OR should we just react to every hysterical story line whipped up by climate armageddonist's ....
Another denier!!!
Just another welfare recipient/ greenie / drug addict. What a leaner!...
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-08/i-am-an-extinction-rebellion-protester-and-this-is-why/11561182
Select to expand quoteBoardwalk said..
Just another welfare recipient/ greenie / drug addict. What a leaner!...
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-08/i-am-an-extinction-rebellion-protester-and-this-is-why/11561182
you forgot commie, treehugger, chardonay sipping, bike rider
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Agree ...
Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW .... a more pragmatic sensible approach vs the hysteria whipped up by one eyed IPCC shills for left wing political / power / money / control gain - worlds gonna end in 12 years nutcases etc .... Really hoping there's a Greta backlash and some of the scientists who have kept their heads down , start standing up and being heard .... Why not start throwing all those wasted trillions $$$ planned for carbon emission schemes into ACTUAL F#$$ING R&D of new technologies that will help us transition a gradually away from fossil .... like thorium molten salt reactors etc ... battery r&d storage etc .... , and help fund better protection for communities at risk from flooding etc from SINKING land , or crap sea defences .... OR should we just react to every hysterical story line whipped up by climate armageddonist's ....
How can you 'throw' all those "wasted trillions" from planned carbon emission schemes? What happened to the scheme in Australia? It appears that some people didn't want it if you are to believe the government.
That makes no sense, as there is no carbon price, so what are you going to throw?
The whole idea of a carbon price here is to make renewable energy production cheaper, by making other energy production more expensive. You can't just pray that it gets cheaper, and you can't just pretend you are going to wait around for money that doesn't exist.
People don't just build things like thorium molten salt reactors and batteries and then come to the public and ask them for a carbon trading scheme to pay for it.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..kilo54 said..petermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
The rise in sea level is straight line - about 25cms per century. Storm surges can be several METRES, so an inch or 2 does not matter. Also, just low pressure makes the sea rise up to 2ft........where Henry Hudson landed on his bay, is now 20kms from the water. Ostia, Rome's port, now kms from the sea. Ditto Pevensey Castle, where William the conqueror landed, now several MILES from the sea. Some rising sea level, eh?
"The Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, and was a time of prosperity. Why should our slight warming be doom and gloom? Absurd!"
The alarmists have got it precisely backwards - is a Tony Robbins technique - say the complete opposite of reality.
Polar bears love less ice. They do not eat in Summer anyway! LESS storms in latter part of 20th century cf first half. Several papers on it.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; bad scientists; cheats. Our Govs wasting billions on this CO2 guff.
CO2 is GOOD. Plants grow faster AND use less water. (the stomata more closed); longer growing seasons; more exotic crops; lower heating bills; less deaths (cold kills 20 times more than hot)
Plant growth up 50% since 1950. Average; pine trees MUCH more increase.
Sadly the media reckons GW popular, so relentlessly cater to it. Like cheap whores, selling themselves and heedless of the damage. Swine. CBC, BBC, ABC all the same, trotting out garbage.
Agree ...
Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW .... a more pragmatic sensible approach vs the hysteria whipped up by one eyed IPCC shills for left wing political / power / money / control gain - worlds gonna end in 12 years nutcases etc .... Really hoping there's a Greta backlash and some of the scientists who have kept their heads down , start standing up and being heard .... Why not start throwing all those wasted trillions $$$ planned for carbon emission schemes into ACTUAL F#$$ING R&D of new technologies that will help us transition a gradually away from fossil .... like thorium molten salt reactors etc ... battery r&d storage etc .... , and help fund better protection for communities at risk from flooding etc from SINKING land , or crap sea defences .... OR should we just react to every hysterical story line whipped up by climate armageddonist's ....
Great post
I occupy the middle ground on this debate. I too believe there's a gradual warming occurring naturally with a small % maybe AGW. If that makes me a denier, so be it, I am a denier.
If being a 'denier' means I am a catastrophe skeptic, so be it, I am a denier.
Imagine a beautiful world were the wasted trillions on climate scams were spent on solar and battery r&d. Imagine household solar systems and batteries so cheap, efficient and long lasting that they do not need oppressive high taxes to support them. Imagine people, with their own free will, choosing solar and batteries because it is the best option, not because they are forced by bad policy increasing power prices.
Join us in the middle ground, become a denier today. Let's make Australia great again.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..seabreezer said..kilo54 said..petermac33 said..
Every one of their previous dire predictions has turned out to be BS so why believe them any more?
If you still believe then you should be pushing the govt to build dikes all around the country at a cost of hundreds of billions I would have thought.
www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
The rise in sea level is straight line - about 25cms per century. Storm surges can be several METRES, so an inch or 2 does not matter. Also, just low pressure makes the sea rise up to 2ft........where Henry Hudson landed on his bay, is now 20kms from the water. Ostia, Rome's port, now kms from the sea. Ditto Pevensey Castle, where William the conqueror landed, now several MILES from the sea. Some rising sea level, eh?
"The Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, and was a time of prosperity. Why should our slight warming be doom and gloom? Absurd!"
The alarmists have got it precisely backwards - is a Tony Robbins technique - say the complete opposite of reality.
Polar bears love less ice. They do not eat in Summer anyway! LESS storms in latter part of 20th century cf first half. Several papers on it.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; bad scientists; cheats. Our Govs wasting billions on this CO2 guff.
CO2 is GOOD. Plants grow faster AND use less water. (the stomata more closed); longer growing seasons; more exotic crops; lower heating bills; less deaths (cold kills 20 times more than hot)
Plant growth up 50% since 1950. Average; pine trees MUCH more increase.
Sadly the media reckons GW popular, so relentlessly cater to it. Like cheap whores, selling themselves and heedless of the damage. Swine. CBC, BBC, ABC all the same, trotting out garbage.
Agree ...
Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW .... a more pragmatic sensible approach vs the hysteria whipped up by one eyed IPCC shills for left wing political / power / money / control gain - worlds gonna end in 12 years nutcases etc .... Really hoping there's a Greta backlash and some of the scientists who have kept their heads down , start standing up and being heard .... Why not start throwing all those wasted trillions $$$ planned for carbon emission schemes into ACTUAL F#$$ING R&D of new technologies that will help us transition a gradually away from fossil .... like thorium molten salt reactors etc ... battery r&d storage etc .... , and help fund better protection for communities at risk from flooding etc from SINKING land , or crap sea defences .... OR should we just react to every hysterical story line whipped up by climate armageddonist's ....
Great post
I occupy the middle ground on this debate. I too believe there's a gradual warming occurring naturally with a small % maybe AGW. If that makes me a denier, so be it, I am a denier.
If being a 'denier' means I am a catastrophe skeptic, so be it, I am a denier.
Imagine a beautiful world were the wasted trillions on climate scams were spent on solar and battery r&d. Imagine household solar systems and batteries so cheap, efficient and long lasting that they do not need oppressive high taxes to support them. Imagine people, with their own free will, choosing solar and batteries because it is the best option, not because they are forced by bad policy increasing power prices.
Join us in the middle ground, become a denier today. Let's make Australia great again.
Yep let's all follow into the Fool's Paradise, certainly won't be lonely there although it may be a bit hot...
Reading through all this guff from the denier camp... I'm certain now. We won't be able to stop it. We are too stupid, too ready to disbelieve expert advice to avoid it.
We are all going to BURN.
my climate was good last week 
With the new change of day light saving & rising temp weather in vico is good yeah.
only bad was I contributed to ozone by doing lots farts lately.
How about yours?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..Shifu said.. We are all going to BURN.
Or drown, or both
It's ok the government will save us if we moan enough
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW
Nup. That statement appears to be contrary to the reality and without any evidence. Maybe read the BOM report?!
Most radiative forcing appears to be due to greenhouse gases and for that we're responsible.
Then agin, the NATURALISTS may have an unscientific view like it's all due to Trump's continual farting. I can't wait to see the evidence supplied.
Select to expand quotegroucho said..seabreezer said..Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW
Nup. That statement appears to be contrary to the reality and without any evidence. Maybe read the BOM report?!
Most radiative forcing appears to be due to greenhouse gases and for that we're responsible.
Then agin, the NATURALISTS may have an unscientific view like it's all due to Trump's continual farting. I can't wait to see the evidence supplied.
No water vapor on that graph
Wonder why they would leave the largest and most important greenhouse gas off their graph
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..groucho said..seabreezer said..Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW
Nup. That statement appears to be contrary to the reality and without any evidence. Maybe read the BOM report?!
Most radiative forcing appears to be due to greenhouse gases and for that we're responsible.
Then agin, the NATURALISTS may have an unscientific view like it's all due to Trump's continual farting. I can't wait to see the evidence supplied.
No water vapor on that graph
Wonder why they would leave the largest and most important greenhouse gas off their graph
It's a plot of changed radiative forcings wrt preindustrial counterparts. Water vapour is not considered a "forcing" because its concentration responds rapidly to temperature. Its net action is in a strong negative feedback loop. It moderates the effect of the forcers but apparently doesn't cancel them out completely,.
The weather is pretty good right now in Sydney too. How long does it take for us to have fairly average weather before the hysteria abates?
Anyone want to have a wager? I bet when the temperature hits 40 degrees this summer in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide, we will have it politicised as evidence of climate change. They expect people to have the memory of gold fish and forget there was hot weather in the olden days of ten years ago.
People keep going on about rising sea levels. One of the most accurate record of sea levels for over 100 years from Sydney Harbour shows sea levels are steadily rising at a linear rate. There is absolutely no evidence the rate of sea level rises has changed over the last 100 years.
To say otherwise is a lie.
Select to expand quoteShifu said..
Reading through all this guff from the denier camp... I'm certain now. We won't be able to stop it. We are too stupid, too ready to disbelieve expert advice to avoid it.
We are all going to BURN.
If one truly believes this then why not do the following? Sell out and move somewhere to where its a cooler place whether this is in the country one lives in or in another country. For example Australians who genuinely believe the climate is changing and is getting warmer they could move to the west coast of Tasmania. This is a place that must benefit from a warming climate.
If worst comes to worst move to somewhere like Patagonia in Argentina or inland Alaska where the temperature gets down to about minus 40 in winter. You will be laughing if what you believe comes to fruition while all those foolish people who live day by day paying their way in life will burn in climate change hell.
