Climate change: Global temperatures continue to rise

There’s evidence that, globally, temperatures will continue to rise.

Climate change: Global temperatures continue to rise

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and CSIRO's biennial State of the Climate report shows that since reliable surface air temperature records began in 1880, last year was the warmest on record for the globe. With records showing that Australia has warmed 1°C since 1910, it comes as no surprise that that, globally, 15 of the last 16 years have been the warmest ever recorded.

The report also revealed that, since 1970, the rainfall in the south-west of Australia decreased by around 19 per cent, while rainfall across parts of northern Australia increased. The key results to come out of this year’s report are that, since 1970, the duration, intensity and frequency of extreme heat events has increased all across large parts of Australia.

Australia is already feeling the effects of climate change, with ocean temperatures causing the loss of large parts of the Great Barrier Reef.

Scientists and the BOM’s Dr Braganza agree that every country needs to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and lower their CO2 emissions. Dr Braganza believes that, even if this direct action occurred today, there would still be more warming over the next few decades.

Are you worried about how we are leaving the planet for future generations? Would you comply with extreme energy and fuel restrictions if implemented?

Read more at www.abc.net.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Franky
    27th Oct 2016
    10:54am
    I believe it's a 'storm in a tea cup'. Checking 150 year records of rainfall in my area and temps, I found that we had in the past just as extreme weather. If anything it may be part of a 100 year cycle, as here in the Far North about 100 years ago there were massive cyclones, followed by relative calm until the mid to late 1980's. I'm not worried at all, and believe the whole issue is a part of the globalization agenda and about creating new jobs, bureaucracies and industries. It's a law of nature that the only certainty is change, nature is bigger than us and will adapt. So will we if we keep ourselves healthy and in tune with nature. Our feeble attempts at manipulating nature won't come to much. Though anything which reduces pollution I support!
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2016
    11:27am
    Frankie knows better than the BOM and the CSIRO. Yeah right.

    Please explain how the public servants at those organisations, under our current ultra-conservative, climate change denying government, are "part of the globalization agenda and about creating new jobs, bureaucracies and industries."
    AJS
    27th Oct 2016
    12:09pm
    Barak, Perhaps if you had a look at the BOM records, you too will see that rainfall, temps etc, can vary wildly from one year to another.

    If last year was the hottest, than this year must be one of the coldest.
    Eddy
    27th Oct 2016
    12:25pm
    Whoever win this debate about climate change I tend to side with the scientists rather than the vested interests. If climate change is not real then what have we got to lose if we implement all these climate saving measures - only money. But if climate change is real not implementing the measures could be absolutely catastrophic. So what we got to lose?
    Greg
    27th Oct 2016
    3:24pm
    AJS - You have a very simplistic view. Of course the weather can change from year to year but over the long term the temperature is increasing. It's just like the stock market, there are ups and downs over days, weeks, months even years but over the long term the market has ALWAYS increased.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Oct 2016
    5:28pm
    It's the first time in history that mining companies have been able to mine in Greenland because the permafrost has gone in critical areas.
    The Fox glacier has retreated more than 7 Klms in the last 10 years.
    Areas in Alaska are now devoid of ice and can now be mined, first time ever.
    We in Australia haven't yet seen the obvious and devastating effects of Climate Change, but we will soon enough.
    ex PS
    28th Oct 2016
    1:52pm
    It comes down to who you choose to take information from and how you choose to disseminate that information. Do you trust over 90% of the worlds climate scientists who have dedicated their lives to a science that is neither sexy or financially rewarding, or a bunch of shock jocks and politicians who have a vested interest in pushing a particular barrel?
    Most shock jocks are in the paid for comment category and politicians will change their attitude to anything if it will get them votes or recognition(Look at M.T).
    Personally I think I will put my faith in the scientists who are actually trained to pay attention to this subject. A subject by the way that is measured in centuries not decades or years.
    Either way we are probably already screwed because of apathetic selfish non-action from politicians.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    2:37pm
    On the internet postings stating that the earth is heating up or cooling down cooling are about equal in number. So how do you decide?

    Meaningful conclusions can only be drawn by observing change over a very long period of time. Global temperatures were higher in 1922 than now, as the Arctic icepack was 1500 km further north then than in 2012 when it was falsely reported to be at a record low. Even further back, the Vikings farmed in Greenland, grapes were grown in the north of England. Fossilized tree rings going back to 138 BC show that the world was at least 1 degree warmer then than now.

    On the other hand, global temperatures were much lower over a century or so ago when, for example, the Thames froze regularly.

    If warming is real, if the additional heat has sunk into the depths of the oceans, then why have the polar icecaps refused to melt? How could warm water defy the laws of convection which dictate that it must rise to the surface and the coldest water must remain in the ocean depths?

    But the biggest problem is Mars. Until a suitable explanation is provided for the reason behind the current melting of the Martian ice caps, arguments that climate change on Earth is attributable to human activity have no credibility.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    3:10pm
    maxchugg - we both know about an awful lot of human activities that warm things up. Can you name one human activity that cools things down?
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    5:50pm
    Refrigeration?
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    5:52pm
    Only inside the fridge. Overall, a fridge creates more heat outside than cooling inside.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    6:55pm
    Barak, you win that one. I agree with you.

    If I believed that human activities were indeed contributing to global warming and if I believed that the final outcome would be to the long term disadvantage of the planet, I would also agree with you on that point. But, as I have indicated, I remain persuaded that the fluctuations we see in global temperatures are purely natural events and until I see credible evidence to the contrary, that is a view I will retain.

    Apart from the problems I have previously highlighted, another is probably the most avoided question of all - after industries have been decimated and domestic power made all but unaffordable, how much will the global temperature drop?

    The other problem I have with the "climate scientists" is that to be a climate scientist, belief in the theory of man made global warming is mandatory. Disbelievers are ejected from the club, often lose their employment, some have reported death threats.

    Scientific method would require that before the theory of man made global warming is accepted as fact, there would have to be equal,impartial consideration of the evidence which supports the theory and that which contradicts it.

    The argument that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is another exercise in deceit that fails to stand up to scrutiny. The evidence does not support the claim and in reality the figure should be 100% because the dissenters are not accepted as climate scientists.

    The extent to which "climate scientists" have abandoned the use of scientific method is breathtaking. The willingness of some at least, to resort to intimidation of dissenters by demanding legal action against them is not only disgusting, it is destructive of their credibility.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    7:03pm
    What on earth do you mean by "after industries have been decimated and domestic power made all but unaffordable"?

    I worked with Australia's first climate scientists to postulate man-made climate change. They had no "belief". They were scientists.

    Your claims about death threats etc are just rubbish.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    7:50pm
    Here are a few sites which support my views about persecution of global warming deniers:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers
    https://ncse.com/library-resource/climate-change-denial-is-affecting-education
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/
    http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/fascism.html
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17685-climate-scientist-global-warming-nazis-threaten-humanity

    Naturally you will argue that these sources are all biased. To not be biased they have to accept the conclusion that human induced climate change is real.

    Aha, you worked in the climate change industry. Or should I say religion? So doesn't that make you a wee bit biased?

    As for your question about what I mean by industries closing and domestic power prices rising to unaffordable levels, obviously you don't live in South Australia which seems to be a reasonably reliable indicator of where the rest of the nation is heading.

    Anyway, back to basics. Please comment on my question about how much the global temperature will fall after all the nations have adopted proposed methods to reduce climate change/global warming.

    Also please explain how people who totally abandon established scientific procedures can still claim to be scientists.

    And finally, here is an extremely biased and therefore unacceptable to you, list of prominent scientists who do follow scientific method, yet deny the truth of the current theories of climate change and its causes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    8:24pm
    Nope, you're the one who's wrong, on so many counts.

    And no, it's science , not religion. I see religious fervour in your position.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    8:46pm
    If I'm wrong, at least provide facts to support your opinion, because that's all it is, and, as we have seen, heavily biased.

    Also, instead of ducking for cover, please answer this question - how much will the global temperature fall if the proposed draconian measures are put into place.

    I notice that you have avoided comment on the situation which has arisen in South Australia where industry has suffered and domestic power prices are now the highest in the nation where national prices at 29 cents per unit are the fourth highest in the world. The highest is Denmark at 41 cents and I have no way of knowing, but would bet that South Australia would not be far away from that price. South Australian readers, your comments would be welcome.

    Also, why should people who refuse to follow scientific method global temperature fall if all of the draconian measures are taken.

    Finally, I repeat that it is not science if standard scientific methodology has not been followed, which is definitely the case.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    9:06pm
    Yes, it IS good science, and you won't convince me otherwise.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    9:09pm
    Barak, you asked me what on earth do I mean by "after industries have been decimated and domestic power made all but unaffordable"?

    I have just discovered the following site which answers your question:

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-faces-years-of-power-prices-double-other-states/news-story/18d9236449dd7ee6c63b39841b401ce9

    The report indicates that following the loss of Holden’s manufacturing facility, other firms mentioned as threatened included BHP Billiton, Riverlands Almond Co, Adelaide Brighton Cement. It also contains a comment that “Big employers where power is a pivotal issue are saying that they’re really going to have to start considering where they base their operations.”

    So, I ask again, if SA prices are double the average for the nation, and hence the highest in the world, what impact will the sufferings of the South Australians have upon global temperatures?
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    9:16pm
    You are far more obsessed with fighting this war than I am.

    I am happy with my position.
    maxchugg
    30th Oct 2016
    10:00pm
    I don't think that obsessed is the right word. I have carefully considered the evidence both for and against the arguments that global warming is not a present concern, that it has happened before and will happen again. Obsession would be considering the arguments in support of my position and ignoring those that contradict it.

    I note that, as I expected, you have avoided the last question which I posted - what effect will the sacrifices made by the South Australians in the loss of industry both present and pending, and facing what appears to be the highest domestic power prices in the world have on global temperature?
    Anonymous
    31st Oct 2016
    7:09am
    Much obsession.
    maxchugg
    31st Oct 2016
    8:47am
    Barak, obsession is a persistent idea. held, in my view, in the face of a mass of contradictory evidence.

    The Chamberlain case, for example. Most people, with massive influence from the media, pre-judged Lindy Chamberlain and ignored evidence which should have at least raised in the minds of the jury doubts sufficient to require an acquittal.

    Ignoring the responsibilities placed upon the jury by law caused an innocent person to spend years in jail followed by both local and international embarrassment in relation to our justice system.

    Ignoring the rules of science will also be embarrassing in the long term, although most of the blame will fall on the USA, the home of the false prophet of the global warming/climate change industry.
    Eddy
    31st Oct 2016
    10:28am
    It seems to me that most climate change sceptics (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way) based their argument on empirical evidence only and discount the scientific evidence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, science is not always right, take weather forecasting for example. However my empirical theory is as follows:
    Over a few billion years a lot of the energy from the Sun was stored in organic materiel, usually trees etc. This materiel was eventually converted into other things like fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. Now I 'know' from science that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed from one form to another, the kinetic energy of moving vehicle is transformed into heat by the brakes and the vehicle slows down or stops. Therefore the energy from the Sun stored on/in the Earth over billions of years is being released over a period of hundreds of years. This could result in the planet heating up resulting in change of climate. Of course there are periods of higher or lower temperatures resulting from variations of solar radiation from the Sun but what is of concern is sudden release of the stored solar radiation over the very short (in geographical) term.
    maxchugg
    31st Oct 2016
    11:11am
    Eddy, what you say makes sense to me, and could even be an explanation for why the polar ice caps on Mars are currently melting. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in that the release of subterranean energy on Earth and Mars has occurred at exactly the same time.

    If this line of reasoning is correct, clearly all human efforts to limit global warming and climate change are exercises in futility. This conclusion is supported by the fact that all of the atmospheric pollution generated since the Industrial Revolution pales into insignificance when compared with the output of volcanic activity over the same period of time.
    Anonymous
    31st Oct 2016
    11:47am
    maxchugg - your state of obsession means you're not convincing anybody.
    maxchugg
    31st Oct 2016
    2:18pm
    Barak, reading your posts gives a clear indication of who is obsessed.

    Unlike you, it is not my intention to convince anyone. I have provided my views based on evidence, you have given your views based on your opinion for which you have presented no supportive evidence.

    I have given reasons for my opinions, you have consistently refused to respond to reasonable questions which I have posed.

    Further, in anticipation of your net response, by challenging every comment I have made you have clearly indicated that your objective is to show that climate change/global warming is current, real and unusual.
    Eddy
    1st Nov 2016
    11:05am
    Gentleman, this is a futile argument. The fact is we will never be free of the necessity for base load generation, ie non-renewable power stations powered by coal, oil, gas or nuclear. But we can reduce the adverse affects by investing in renewables, be they solar, wind, tidal, hydro and any others that haven't yet been invented. As I accept scientific opinion when they strive to cure cancer or other ailments plaguing mankind so I can accept scientific opinion that man made climate change is real. It is what we are going to do about it that is of concern. Some choose not to believe, for some it becomes a mantra. Why can't we take the middle road: accept the necessity for base load, but reduce it's adverse effects, and invest heavily in renewables.
    Janran
    1st Nov 2016
    11:48am
    I don't agree entirely with your third post, Eddy.
    Why can't we derive base load power generation (in combination) from wave power? The ocean never stops. If we develop wave and wind power WITH solar power, we'll always have enough for base load.

    As someone who grew up on the land and lived on an ocean-going yacht for seven years, I am, by necessity, a keen observer of the weather and its effect on the ocean shoreline. When the wind blows, the sea and then the swell increases, creating a progressive source of wind and wave power. It generally coincides with overcast weather. And when the wind stops, the sun comes out and more solar power can be harvested.
    maxchugg
    1st Nov 2016
    12:02pm
    Janran, you are right. I have suggested elsewhere that we scrap the idea of building our submarines here and buy them from the same place as Israel for a fraction of the cost.

    Let the submarine builders in South Australia move in a new generation, making tidal power generators which would seem to be within the capabilities of submarine builders. Employment would not be damaged, reliable base loads of electricity assured, with zero pollution.

    As for global warming/climate change, these are natural processes which have always been with us, and always will be. Fighting nature is futile, working with nature will produce benefits. So if the concern about increased carbon dioxide is a problem, plant more trees which will consume the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
    MICK
    27th Oct 2016
    11:28am
    We all know that Drew. And as we speak Turnbull and his cronies are talking renewables as they try to completely shut down any organisations which are promoting renewables. At the same time coal is being fired up again, the Great Barrier Reef is being promoted as being healthy when half of it is now dead and political funding of political parties by the fossil fuel industry shows no signs of ending.
    Of course we have global warming. Trouble is the mentally challenged public will find out about it when the damage is done and the culprits have slipped away. Never changes. We get what we deserve and this one is going to hurt us like few other disasters every did. Just give it another 100 years and we'll be done.

    27th Oct 2016
    11:29am
    "Are you worried about how we are leaving the planet for future generations?"

    Yes.

    With a bit of wisdom, and widespread commitment, we would not need "extreme energy and fuel restrictions".
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    7:39pm
    so many climate scientists on this site Barak. You are talking to the wind
    maxchugg
    27th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    If the world is really heating up, why are the polar icecaps defying the “experts” and refusing to melt? Since these “experts” predicted the melting of the Antarctic ice, the opposite has happened and the ice has increased in area.

    NSDIC satellite photos of the Arctic show that there was substantial loss of ice in the Arctic in 2012, creating a claim that this was the lowest level ever recorded. Yet in 1922 The Washington Post reported in that year that the arctic ice was at least 1500 kilometres further north than in 2012.

    Fluctuation in climatic temperatures has always happened, and always will. The Vikings grew barley in Greenland 1000 years ago, the Thames goes through periods when it freezes over.

    We were assured in the 1990s that warming induced sea level rise would inundate the Maldives by 2000. It didn't happen, and obviously the line was not swallowed by the UAR which proceeded with the construction of a large number of low lying islands at Dubai.

    But the biggest flaw in the argument is that it is now known that the polar ice caps on Mars are also melting. The only possible conclusion is that climate change is continuous and has little to do with human activity.
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2016
    12:04pm
    No good trying to convince you that the earth is spherical then.
    Sen.Cit.90
    27th Oct 2016
    12:40pm
    Rod, You have used this sentence in a number of comments; where are you measuring the earth?

    Copied fro Google:
    What’s a more accurate description of the Earth’s shape? An oblate spheroid.

    What is an oblate spheroid? It’s the shape you get by spinning an ellipse around it’s minor axis. That says if you were to take a cross-section of the Earth containing the polar axis, the shape you get would be an ellipse. The polar axis would be the minor axis and the equatorial axis would be the major axis. But if you were to take a cross-section through the equator, or any plane parallel to the equator, you’d get a circle.
    maxchugg
    27th Oct 2016
    12:42pm
    Rod, I actually do believe that the earth is spherical because I have seen evidence to support that belief.

    Likewise if the above small amount of the mass of evidence that is available to support my opinion is wrong, please respond with equally credible support for your views.
    margie
    27th Oct 2016
    12:55pm
    Agree with you maxugg, I'll start to worry when the climate stops changing
    ex PS
    28th Oct 2016
    1:57pm
    Unfortunately some people will only accept the truth about climate change when it is too late to do anything about it. It is not brave or very bright to gamble with your grandchildren's future.
    As far as providing evidence that you may choose to accept "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see".
    Over 90% of the available evidence says that climate change is real, are you waiting for it to be 100% before you face reality?
    maxchugg
    2nd Nov 2016
    9:34am
    exPS, I believe that evidence of climate change is 100%, not 90%

    The problem with the argument is that climate change moves in both directions, hotter and colder as far as the bogeyman of global warming is concerned. It always has, and always will.

    The temperature of the planet is obviously controlled in ways not yet fully understood. Carbon dioxide levels are an example. Increased carbon dioxide n the atmosphere causes plants to grow faster, absorb more carbon dioxide, emit oxygen and reduce the carbon dioxide level.

    This does not absolve humans from the responsibility of exercising great care in at least minimizing damaging effects their activities have on the environment. Hence I find it inexplicable that those who predict global catastrophe because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere appear to be silent on the subject of clear felling of trees, which is one of many examples available.
    Janran
    2nd Nov 2016
    11:53am
    I'm certainly not silent about the clear felling of trees, maxchugg, and I don't know anyone who is concerned about global warning who is not also against the clear felling of forests.

    I wrote the following on my latest post:
    "...Better we deal with the immediate problem with knowledge at hand, to deal with the possibility of catastrophic global warming. Like you suggest, let's grow more forests, let's stop clearing forests and let's stop burning fossil fuels. We'll need a world revolution to succeed with that, unfortunately. ...
    There are probably a lot of us on this blog who agree in principle to our reality of global warming, but we don't need to be distracted by things like changing the Earth's orbits. Those profiting from mining and burning fossil fuels, and those who have stymied investment in renewable energy possibilities, are rubbing their hands in glee, when they hear us being distracted from the main game, which is: STOP CLEARING FORESTS AND STOP MINING AND BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. "
    and earlier:
    "... But it seems there are some among us who are happy for your children's children to be more inundated by salt water, experience lower standards of living and perhaps world wide famine, and suffer more deaths caused by extreme storms and bush fires, than need be.
    Who cares who or what caused global warming? Let's just do our best to not make it worse. What's important is that we act to stop it if we can, AND we can - by stop cutting down forests and stop burning fossil fuels. "

    To quote you: "... Carbon dioxide levels are an example. Increased carbon dioxide n the atmosphere causes plants to grow faster, absorb more carbon dioxide, emit oxygen and reduce the carbon dioxide level."
    This is very simplistic. Why do you assume increased carbon dioxide levels will create more photosynthesis (and thus more oxygen)? Plants need water and arable land to germinate in the first place, and maybe plants on the earth already have a surplus of carbon dioxide - they can only photosynthesize to their own capacity.

    More extreme droughts and more severe storms will only create an increased loss of topsoil and arable land. The cycle just gets more vicious the longer we wait to act. It is probably too late to stop irreversible damage to the earth's crust and biosphere, with ocean acidification and coral bleaching just the beginning.
    maxchugg
    2nd Nov 2016
    6:09pm
    Janra, it seems that we have a reasonable level of agreement.

    I did say that proponents of global warming appear to be silent on the matter of the clearing of trees. Your attitude to this is encouraging.

    You ask why I assume more carbon dioxide will create more photosynthesis. The answer is that in recent times, rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been accompanied by record crops.

    As for severe droughts, the failure of predictions for endless drought have totally failed, and the billion dollar desalination plants have been lying idle for years.

    Dorothea McKellar made an apt comment when she referred to a land of droughts and flooding rains. Variations in rainfall from one extreme to the other, were as well known when that poem was written as they are now, and will be in the future.
    Janran
    3rd Nov 2016
    11:26am
    Your conclusion about rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere being accompanied by record crops, is anecdotal rather than scientific. That's not to say that anecdotal observations should be disregarded. But go back to my previous point: if water, arable land and large plantings don't happen first, you will never get a bumper crop.

    And how often is a bumper crop ruined by hail and storms before harvesting? Are you talking about overall yields or expected yields from a bumper crop?

    Again, I emphasize that increasing EXTREMES of droughts and storms are what will change the face of our planet so detrimentally.
    Of course there will never be an endless drought - it just feels like that when you are breathing in your topsoil and your eyes are permanently red. And it seems the worse the drought, the worse the following floods. Our precious topsoil is the big loser, along with us.

    Plant more trees!
    maxchugg
    3rd Nov 2016
    11:11pm
    Science trumps visible evidence.

    I repeat the words of Dorothea McKellar we live in a land of droughts and flooding rains.
    Hunter
    27th Oct 2016
    11:48am
    Both BOM and CSIRO have a nasty habit of talking CRAP but if your income is dependent on saying the right things ...... "Homogenisation" of data results (google search ) is their preferred method. N.B. No one is denying climate change . It is called Summer, Autumn Winter, Spring.
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2016
    12:04pm
    No good trying to convince you that the earth is spherical then.
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2016
    12:05pm
    "N.B. No one is denying climate change . It is called Summer, Autumn Winter, Spring."

    Hunter, they are the seasons - not to be confused with climate.
    Hunter
    27th Oct 2016
    1:20pm
    R 63. No good trying to get you to acknowledge how BOM and CSIRO justify their so called findings ? Have you heard of the impending ice age ? What about solar activity ? Volcanic activity on land and in the oceans ? Nothing to do with the greatest man made con /scam know to man as " man made global warming/ climate change."
    P$cript
    27th Oct 2016
    3:48pm
    Oh! That's the funniest thing I have read lately.
    The most common mistake is referring to weather as climate, whereas climate drives weather.

    The use of seasons to show there is climate change is so wrong. Seasons are the result of the tilted Earth's axis.

    No wonder you think the likes of the BoM and the CSIRO are talking crap, it is either you are in another universe or you are wearing your bullshit filter backwards.
    Hasbeen
    27th Oct 2016
    11:53am
    This is the worst bit of garbage propaganda you have ever published on this site.

    Either you are profiting from pushing this rubbish, or are so dumb you must have trouble remembering which way is up. I have never seen so many global warming myths put into so few words before.

    Credibility is a delicate thing. Be careful you don't destroy yours with this rubbish.
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2016
    12:04pm
    No good trying to convince you that the earth is spherical then.
    grounded
    27th Oct 2016
    12:15pm
    Ozone Layers, Global Warming, Climate Change....topics to give the doomsday merchants some form of obscure relevance. Take a look at the gigantic climate, weather changes since the Ice Age....we are living in one of the most stable weather periods of this Planet's history.

    People conveniently forget, purposely ignore this fact, beyond sleazy politicians and big business wishing to drum up fear and dollars respectively.

    Yes, we 'modern' humans are ecological pigs....polluted water courses and oceans to name but one of the most serious....along with our want to cut down every oxygen providing tree that we sight....but, we must focus only on fossil fuels...which every avowed greenie loves to beat this/her can about, while freely wallowing in every electrical/electronic convenience us horrible humans have devised.

    No conclusive, irrefutable proof...as defined by science, and required by science, exists. Granted, our weather is changing...as it has for many millions of years....and does deserve that we keep a close eye on it...though without providing and allowing for the hysterical crusade that we daily see by the great deluded unwashed, and agenda driven politicians and big business.

    A true believing greenie would immediately move to disconnect him/herself from the electricity grid, sell their motor vehicle, as to never use one again...and find themselves a nice cave to live in - one which would desirably have first rate echo qualities, as to listen to their shrill ravings of 'we're all doomed' day in, day out.

    That is not...never going to happen. The great unwashed are NOT that committed. Their hollow call is 'renewables'. What is going to happen for the next 100 years, while 'renewable's' are perfected to base load generation capacity.

    An immediate answer is Nuclear...if the greenies are so concerned for the Planet. Whew...just listen to them start up on that subject. 'That'll kill us'...will be the great unwashed chorus line...aside from the fact we have enough nuclear weapons and nuclear waste in current existence, to blow this Planet asunder into a thousand pieces.

    Don't you just love the division that the great unwashed have brought to this most serious of issues.
    Sen.Cit.90
    27th Oct 2016
    12:49pm
    Quite a write-up Grounded,
    I concur with most especially the sentence; "No conclusive, irrefutable proof...as defined by science, and required by science, exists:
    Retired Knowall
    27th Oct 2016
    5:31pm
    It's the first time in history that mining companies have been able to mine in Greenland because the permafrost has gone in critical areas.
    The Fox glacier has retreated more than 7 Klms in the last 10 years.
    Areas in Alaska are now devoid of ice and can now be mined, first time ever.
    We in Australia haven't yet seen the obvious and devastating effects of Climate Change, but we will soon enough.
    wally
    27th Oct 2016
    6:20pm
    Retired might be right, but I am wondering if mining can be blamed for the ice melting in Greenland and Alaska. If Retired is doing so, it would seem to be a case of putting the cart before the horse, in this case.
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    10:13am
    Retired Knowall, with the greatest of respect I fear that you are the victim of the history revisionists.

    It is established fact that in previous times the climate in Greenland was sufficiently warm to allow the Vikings to grow barley, hence mining would also have been possible:
    http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

    As I have mentioned elsewhere, another story was that in 2012 the Arctic ice reached a record low in the summer of that year. A pity to ruin a good story, but 90 years earlier, in 1922, a scientific expedition reported that the ice ended 1500 kilometres further north than was the case in 2012. (Check this out on Snopes)

    My interest was sparked in the early 1990s when it was predicted that by 2000 the Arctic ice would be gone in summer, so I have watched the ice every day since that time. The prediction has totally failed as did another one which ran concurrently, that the Maldives would be submerged by 2000.

    The ice hasn’t melted, and won’t. The polar bears are so safe that it is still possible to buy a permit to hunt them.

    In the Maldives, after their stunt of holding an underwater cabinet meeting, millions have been spent upgrading infrastructure for the tourist trade. Obviously they do not genuinely expect their land to be swamped in the forseeable future.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    10:20am
    maxchugg - it's always going to be easy to cherry pick particular predictions which haven't come true.

    It does not prove that the report under discussion here is wrong.
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    11:42am
    Barak, is it really cherrypicking to argue that the following predictions have failed:

    1. Maldives to be submerged by 2000, followed by Tuvalu and other islands in the vicinity.

    2. Drought to be permanent in Australia, a dam at Brisbane would never be filled. (It subsequently flooded)

    3. Desalination plants built for billions of dollars in Australia to offset the effects of the predicted droughts, now mothballed.

    4. Sea levels to rise dramatically according to Al Gore, agreed by Kevin Rudd. (Gore has since spent $8.75 million, Rudd $3.1 million on seaside mansions).

    5. Sea level gauge constructed at Port Arthur in 1841 shows no rise in ocean level.

    6. Polar bears were to become extinct due to loss of habitat. (Apparently the approximately 600 square miles of Alaska was overlooked).

    Please indulge in a little cherrypicking, to use your term. Please provide evidence of predictions in relation to climate change/global warming that have been shown to been correct.
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    11:45am
    Barak, a small typo. The Area of Alaska is about 600,000 square miles, not a mere 600.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    12:01pm
    Yes, it IS cherry picking. Stick to predictions by serious climatologists, not something you read in the popular press.

    Neither Al Gore nor Kevin Rudd are politicians, not climatologists. There predictions really count for nothing. I'd be interested to know where your other chosen predictions came from.

    As for desal plants, they take a long time to build. Better to have them available for when we need them rather than die of thirst waiting for them to be built.
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    1:15pm
    Barak, you continue to resent your opinions in a futile effort to rebut established facts.

    Had I mentioned one feeble example of fact to support my argument then your complaint of cherrypicking would be justified, but I have presented 6 of the many facts - not predictions - which are available to show that the global warming/climate claims are GIGO.

    GIGO is a term which aptly describes the computer models that the climate scientists use. Garbage in, garbage out.

    If you want to have any credibility, please respond to my challenge by effectively rebutting the six points I have raised, and provide credible evidence of any correct predictions made by climate scientists.

    You say that the opinions of Gore and Rudd count for nothing. Rudd, with his super ego, would not agree, Gore started this whole business with his book "An Inconvenient truth."

    You also advise me to stick to predictions by serious climatologists. Like Professor Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge who has been predicting an imminent ice free Arctic for years.

    Or maybe David Suzuki who had never heard of the global temperature datasets which supply information to the IPCC -UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global warming, but still wants politicians who deny the truth of global warming to be jailed.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    1:59pm
    Of those names, the only one with anything like formal climatological skills is Wadhams.

    Has he really been way off the mark?
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    2:32pm
    Barak, is the Pope Catholic? Professor Wadhams has been predicting an ice free Arctic by "this year or next year" for several years now. Obviously shameless, when one prediction fails he simply puts up a new one.

    The first of the following links is posted because it is doubtful that even you will be able to dispute its authenticity, the others, two of a large number of those available, also provide useful insights into the reliability of this highly qualified climate scientist.

    https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/when-climate-scientists-criticise-each-other/

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/climate-experts-at-war-over-prediction-of-icefree-arctic/news-story/e0870b154f6552e9c88f4d6399191b22

    https://cliscep.com/2016/08/18/more-idiocy-from-john-vidal-and-peter-wadhams/

    But why do you not support David Suzuki, an eminently qualified climate scientist:

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    2:37pm
    Suzuki is a zoologist and geneticist.

    Anyway, I'll back our Australian climate scientists. It's their report we're discussing
    maxchugg
    28th Oct 2016
    3:10pm
    Barak, dare is say it? Isn't that a little bit racist? You will now only believe Australian scientists?

    But what about the biggest problem of all, ignoring the fact that volcanic activity is obviously the major source of atmospheric pollution:

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/planetearth/stories/1839/

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19197-icelands-volcanic-pollution-dwarfs-all-of-europes-human-emissions

    If human activity is the cause of the very small amount of global warming that has occurred in the last century, what is a credible explanation for the fact that the Martian ice caps are melting? Surely this is clear proof that any temperature fluctuations are attributable to solar activity?

    I have seen fanciful explanations on the internet of how human activity has affected the Martian climate, just as I have also seen claims that the increased area of ice in the Antarctic is attributable to global warming. Somehow I can't seem to get my head around such nonsense.

    The two most credible explanations I have seen are:

    1. The Arctic ice breaks away and floats downhill to the Antarctic.
    2. The Martians have increased their industrial activity and caused the global warming that is in evidence on their plante.
    Andy
    27th Oct 2016
    12:20pm
    time the main stream of people woke up, globle warmng is a hack, set off by a few billion airs, to make more millions, trouble is Politicians fell for it, even though now they know better, they are keeping their mouths shut. dew to "save face".
    loraines
    27th Oct 2016
    12:21pm
    1oC in 106 years?? What a beat up.
    Oh, have you been to Melbourne this spring? It's still freezing!
    POLLIE BACKFLIP
    27th Oct 2016
    12:38pm
    I reckon it is a fair bet that most skeptics of Climate Change also blamed renewable energy for the recent power grid failure in South Australia, like a few misinformed politicians. So all you skeptics, continue to breath under sand.
    jackyd
    27th Oct 2016
    1:06pm
    The grid failed in SA due to a number of Wind Farm shut downs overloading the interconnector from Victoria.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Oct 2016
    5:33pm
    OH Jackyd, you really need to hide you complete ignorance.
    jackyd
    27th Oct 2016
    6:36pm
    Retired Knowall, download the report from The Australian Energy Market Operator if you want the facts of the matter then you may satisfy your own complete ignorance.
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    7:22pm
    So that's like saying I drove my car into a tree on my way home and totalled my car. But my reason for not getting home was the type of fuel I had in the car. Really!!!!!
    I didn't know power travels along downed and broken power lines and if it did any sane power station/government would turn off the power immediately or you know people could die!!!
    Power security equals solar and batteries
    P$cript
    27th Oct 2016
    7:30pm
    Jackyd, the wind farms did not shutdown. Network protection disconnected the wind farms. The amazing part was the network operator was unaware that these protection setting were installed.
    jackyd
    28th Oct 2016
    3:57am
    Can't confuse lefties with facts.
    Nine wind farms shut down or reduced output due to system voltage faults while the gas fired facilities continued output.
    Read the AMEO last report if you care.
    Wind generators own network protection mechanisms shut their systems from the grid, not by a separate Network as has been implied.
    Back to your caves people.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    4:17am
    jackyd cleverly insulted those who disagree with him by calling them "lefties". jackyd therefore wins the debate.

    jackyd - you are reading ONLY the sources that suit you. Please look at the broader picture.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    4:17am
    Oh, and do try to get back somewhere near the actual topic.
    jackyd
    28th Oct 2016
    9:22am
    Barak, the topic is the reply to the above statement.
    Facts win the debate.
    The sources of information from the AEMO are far more reliable than that from the ABC, Fairfax or Jay Weatheral.
    Only lefties push this barrow.
    Finally, the final report is due in approximately six months when all concerns can be answered, one way or the other.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    9:48am
    While you continue to label those who disagree with you with the (intended to be insulting) word "lefties", you are the one here obviously showing a bias.

    I won't comment on the other sources you attack, but the ABC is the only truly independent media outlet we have. All others are beholden to advertisers, often the same advertisers who support the Liberal Party. The fact that you don't like what they say does not prove they are unreliable.
    jackyd
    28th Oct 2016
    12:56pm
    As you say Barak, stick to the topic!
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    1:52pm
    What a silly response.

    Makes me feel more confident in my position.
    ex PS
    28th Oct 2016
    2:02pm
    jackyd, my wife took away the extension cord I was using to do a back yard project, I could not finish the job. BLOODY POWER GRID, it's all it's fault. As most of my power comes from coal, this surely proves that coal is unreliable?

    27th Oct 2016
    12:45pm
    An oft quoted phrase comes to mind; there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Australia has been settled for a relatively short time in relation to the rest of the world and that means that our record keeping only goes back a couple of hundred years. Sure, there are well credentialed scientists who tell us that there is global warming, (that was changed to climate change when the temperature stalled) but there are just as many well credentialed scientists who will tell the opposite. One such person spoke to a group of which I was a part and told us that Australia's climate appears to be on a 50 year cycle and explained that extreme weather events justify his hypothesis. At the turn of the century (1899/1900) there was record rains and flooding along the east coast as there was in the late 40's/early 50's. Similar major flooding occurred in the early 2000's.

    I don't know who is right or who is wrong but maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. As regards man made pollution, I agree that man has created problems but I won't accept that all of it is man made. When the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajökull, erupted in 2010 there was more air pollution associated with that one event than all of the man made pollution combined. Do we disregard that event because it doesn't suit the discussion.

    What really galled me was the carbon tax imposed on us without warning. Australia contributed just over 1% pollution and when the full effects of the carbon tax were felt, Australia would then contribute just a bit less than 1%. The Greens have a different take on all of this, they claim that as Australia produces coal for use in other countries that we should bear the responsibility for that coal being burned and the resultant pollution. Sorry, I won't cop that.

    So, if we assume that the problem is man made what do we do. If we raise another carbon tax, or similar, to fine large polluters the costs will only be passed on to the consumer as electricity companies did last time. This creates a merry-go-round of money without any noticeable affect on pollution. The catch cry of "polluters must pay" is meaningless as the ones who actually pay are the little people. This proposal is only in a very few countries and the larger polluters are not involved. I love it when the Greens trumpet that China is closing coal burning power stations, which is true, but they forget to add that for every coal burning power station closed, another three newer ones are opened.

    I don't know what the answer to all of this is but I don't believe that politicians know any better than the person in the street. I believe that most politicians are using all of this as scare tactics to make themselves look as if they are doing something in a bald-faced bid to get elected/re-elected.
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    11:49pm
    Hey old man. Did you get your $15 back when they repealed the carbon tax. I know I didn't and no one I know did either,
    Time to stop subsidising the coal and the renewable industries then we would see how competitive renewables would be
    It would bring jobs and be great for the environment as well. Win win. But as long as coal is being subsidised by 10 times more than renewables - we are missing a great chance to lead the world in this area but It's not a level playing field This is the welfare we should be cutting
    4b2
    27th Oct 2016
    12:50pm
    Obviously these people have not read or listened to Alan Jones' rant on Global Warming Hoax.
    What will he have to say about this rubbish!
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    11:35pm
    'Alan Jones' the toilet scientist !!!
    McGroger
    27th Oct 2016
    12:58pm
    I hate debating. So I sat in a corner and read... and read... to get the facts. But the science got beyond me. In the end I realised I didn’t have the brainpower. I decided I’d have to trust someone who did have the brainpower, and the science. I chose the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and NASA.
    Hasbeen
    27th Oct 2016
    2:02pm
    Do you still believe stomach ulcers are caused by worry then McGroger, or are you only that naïve when it comes to a little math.
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    7:27pm
    I choose science too McGroger I don't go see -me- mate if I get a lump under my arm!!????

    And if I am looking for advice I seek a professional in that matter!!
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2016
    8:33pm
    Yes, in these discussions it always stuns me to see how many know-alls think they know better than professional scientists working for a climate change denying government.
    mudGecko
    27th Oct 2016
    12:59pm
    There has always been weather, long before the trendy left attempted to blame the West for it.
    The Murray River system, for example, has been just a series of ponds several times in our history. They were making wine in a warm Greenland in our history, and other now-freezing locations. There was ice-skating on the Thames River in Dickens' time. The point is, climate has always naturally fluctuated, long before man raised himself from the mud.

    The current media beat up is just a result of various bureaucrats and grant-grabbing academics making overwhelming noise to ensure continuing funding and ego-massaging importance.

    Very rarely indeed has a bureaucrat voted himself out of a cozy sinecure.

    In my observation, only the truly silly people believe self-serving media hyperbole.
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2016
    8:31pm
    The "bureaucrats" you attack are paid salaries by the federal government. What bias would that be expected to cause?
    mudGecko
    27th Oct 2016
    10:25pm
    Point of information : by definition, a bureaucrat does not necessarily belong to a government. He can be found in every organisation, big, small, private companies (though rare), charities, and especially the numerous publicly-funded organisations who must make themselves appear valuable. Every large bureaucratic organisation has its share of seat-polishers whose primary purpose is to promote themselves by any means available, (including telling fibs to the credulous).
    mudGecko
    27th Oct 2016
    10:25pm
    Point of information : by definition, a bureaucrat does not necessarily belong to a government. He can be found in every organisation, big, small, private companies (though rare), charities, and especially the numerous publicly-funded organisations who must make themselves appear valuable. Every large bureaucratic organisation has its share of seat-polishers whose primary purpose is to promote themselves by any means available, (including telling fibs to the credulous).
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    4:07am
    This thread is about a report from scientists at the BOM and the CSIRO. That's what I'm discussing. Are you discussing something different?
    Young
    27th Oct 2016
    1:02pm
    The climate has always changed over time.The question should be how much man is influencing climate change?This is debatable.Hiwever we should all be doing our best to lessen pollution and its effects on the environment.
    I dont agree with schools teaching this as undenaible truth.Everything should be open to debate.
    HarrysOpinion
    27th Oct 2016
    1:32pm
    Climate changes every 4 seasons. This is no rocket science. Climate on our planet is affected by the solar activity of our star, the Sun, that attacks the Earth's protective shield every minute of the day and eventually something has to wear away, something has to give. Advancing astronomy studies have informed us that star systems in various galaxies suffer catastrophic annihilation by whatever forces there are in the universe that cause it. The best scientists and astronomers don't truly understand why this occurs, all they can do is make few calculated guesses. Until they achieve a full and true understanding of how the universe impacts on galaxies and its planets they can not, not one can, profess to know exactly that climate change is the fault of the beings living on planets, like Earth. Yes we produce and manufacture CO2 but, so do other natural events on Earth. Yes, we accept that climate is warming up and yes limiting CO2 emissions is a good idea. What is not a good idea that its all been politicised , hijacked by opportunists and created excuses for taxing people and industries because a bunch of scientists and their research centres depend on their livelihood from government grants. Given that we accept climate change, global warming limiting CO2 emissions and that no one can truly change it and stop it, where is the constructive hype on how the Earth's population will and should adapt to it?
    floss
    27th Oct 2016
    1:45pm
    What has caused this problem, easy over population.We know that we live in the driest country on earth and yet we are bringing more and more people into our country, dumb.Not only that we are paying families to have more children it just gets dumber and dumber. This policy suits the big end of town but not poor old Australia.
    anicca
    27th Oct 2016
    1:51pm
    Food for thought,

    New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans
    The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
    The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
    In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — – demonstrate that cosmic rays can seed clouds, and that the more that cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere, the cloudier it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
    The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
    floss
    27th Oct 2016
    2:04pm
    I was involved in the SA power industry some twenty years ago and I know what lead to the power problem in that state. It was a combination of two things , the sell off of power assets and the decision to block the new inter connector from N.S.W. It is much more complex than that but they were the main points.
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    7:33pm
    Hi Looney. I am not an expert but you seem to know more than most
    So tell me if u can how would the power have got around if the wires were down no matter which source the power came from. It's doing my head in trying to figure that out

    And also is the SA government responsible for the poles and wires or is that the power company's responsibility. I thought that was what the standing charge was for on the bill
    dstark
    27th Oct 2016
    2:09pm
    With two science degrees, I wish those who think humans have caused our climate to change, would recognise some very inconvenient truths:

    Meteorologist Robert White who died October 2015, 51 years ago developed the first weather models in the U.S. Since then so called climatologists have claimed that their computer modelling analyses are based on “all of recorded history” without admitting that their data is no more than 120 years old.

    Rocks and ice cores show that over millions of years, before mankind evolved, our planet has experienced higher and lower long term temperatures, and higher and lower long term atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than the last 120 years.

    Mankind has burnt more coal this century than in all time before 2000, yet the last 16 years has seen a plateauing of last century’s temperature rises.

    Einstein explained the scientific method - if data does not fit a model, the model needs correcting. Hence so many scientists, including the CSIRO, clamour for funding to improve their faulty weather models, hoping that they will develop a reliable climate model.

    Our continuing long term climate temperature changes are caused by our changing proximity to the sun resulting from shifting elliptical orbits, hence ice ages, while the sun’s irregular outbursts of energy, and following lulls, change our weather, causing crops to not ripen.

    As the sun warms the oceans they cannot keep dissolved as much carbon dioxide (the opposite of a solid dissolved in a fluid) so it is released into the atmosphere. Hence, global warming by the sun causes increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is not caused by mankind burning coal. Carbon dioxide’s role as a ‘greenhouse’ gas is minuscule compared to naturally occurring water vapour.
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2016
    8:29pm
    Your "facts" are wrong.

    Why would the BOM and CSIRO scientists, the specialists in THIS field, be wrong?
    Young Simmo
    27th Oct 2016
    2:36pm
    What a load of COCK and BULL.
    YES: Today is different to yesterday, and this year is different to last year, and this century is different to last Century.
    BUT: These changes are probably chicken feed to what has happened over the last 4,700 million years.
    SO: Get on with your life, as you are not going to change anything.
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2016
    8:27pm
    Congratulations on ignoring some of the world's best scientists.
    ozirules
    27th Oct 2016
    10:49pm
    with you on this one Young Simmo. Scientists are not infallible Barak and history shows just how wrong they can be. Phrenology, the Martian Canals, the discovery of the planet Vulcan and oh, wasn't the earth supposed to be flat. How about Hysteria and the belief that the uterus is a living creature that wanders through a womans body obstructing breathing and causing disease. It's fair to say that scientists have often been be wrong so I wouldn't be relying on their theory of the day to base my arguments on global warming, climate change or any other catchphrase applied to our weather patterns.
    Young Simmo
    27th Oct 2016
    11:54pm
    Barak I hope that makes you feel better now, give us some indisputable facts and not guess work. If you think the temperature of the Earth hasn't change in 4,700 million years, and is now shooting through the roof, I would suggest you through your Superman Comics away because, they aint true either. Sorry to bust the BUBBLE.
    What ya reckon parti?
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    4:12am
    Ozirules, we are not discussing any of the things you mentioned. Please stick to the topic, and stop illogically attacking the world's best climate scientists.

    Oh, and the world was know to be round 2,500 years ago.

    Young Simmo, I DID NOT say "the temperature of the Earth hasn't changed in 4,700 million years". Feel free to discuss what I actually DID say. But don't misrepresent me. That won't achieve anything.
    Young Simmo
    28th Oct 2016
    6:28am
    Barak, you used 9 words to make a conclusion about 4,700 million years, you are doing the misrepresenting !
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    6:47am
    I will make this simple for you.

    I DO NOT " think the temperature of the Earth hasn't change in 4,700 million years".

    So, change your hypothetical.
    Young Simmo
    28th Oct 2016
    6:57am
    Barak, that is too hard at 3.55 am over here in the real world.
    never give up
    27th Oct 2016
    2:36pm
    Im interested that this site peddles the abc website on climate change! Maybe the article promoter might like to reflect on the well written article in Th Australian October 23..24th on Is climate policy doing more harm than good? bY Matt Ridley. RIDLEY makes an interesting comment. ....Im truly sick of the one sided promotion and scaremongering ....who has held to account supposed scientist who said eg lake eyre would never be fed with rain again...back in 2008...but whats happened!!! So to the promoters of Life Choices it would be helpful to know how open you are to engaging with those and...and referring to those not as climate change deniers but also honest scientist who are not being paid trillions to tell the world what the Greenies wants to hear. And. .also what is the editorials political persuasion. thank you..look forward to reading your reply.

    27th Oct 2016
    5:09pm
    It's interesting reading the comments on this topic. There are definitely 2 camps, those who believe in climate change being all man made and those who don't. I have come to the conclusion that there are now three topics of conversation to steer clear of; religion, politics and climate change/global warming. It's pointless discussing any one of these topics because minds are set and no amount of reasoning will alter that.
    P$cript
    27th Oct 2016
    6:16pm
    It's pointless discussing whether Climate Change is man made or not as a belief. It's a science that advances with increased knowledge from data collection and analysis.
    As we learn more about how the weather behaves, which is driven by climate, models can be refined to reflect reality. As the causes for climate change has so many variables scientists are still discovering how they interact. To trash the models which are continuing to change by pointing to some models development several years ago is having no understanding of science.
    The study of climate is one of the most complex of sciences. This is shown by just producing a weather forecast requires some of the most powerful computers available. When looking at the comment containing Cherry picked information which in many cases is not in the right context and in such simplified terms that a 10 year old child could tell it is incorrect, is enough to make any one with half a brain cry in frustration.
    Agnomen
    27th Oct 2016
    9:39pm
    Wow. Having read the comments I'm astounded by the apathy, anger and particularly the misinformation. The first two paragraphs of the given article are fact. They are not a conspiracy. The average temperature of the earth's lower atmosphere is increasing over time. The example of the stock market is a good one. It goes up and down on a daily basis, but over time has always increased. There will be seasonal variation in temperature, but overall it is currently getting progressively warmer.

    Yes, there have been longitudinal fluctuations in the past. All of these fluctuations will have had a cause. For the current situation, there is a correlation between the increase in world temperature and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a gas that can capture and reradiate thermal energy so it is reasonable to suspect that there is a link. Granted correlation does not imply causation. The problem is complex and I'd suspect there are variables that haven't been accounted for as yet.

    It is likely that many of the predictions about the future, should this warming trend continue, will be wrong or excessive. Others will be right. Do we have to worry? We simply don't know. We are moving into an environment that none of us will have experienced. It might be benign, but I suspect that there will be a number of unwanted changes. Only time will tell. Without adequate action to control global warming we must be prepared to expect the unexpected.

    Two quick rebuffs.
    1. Yes, cosmic rays can cause cloud nucleation, but fluctions in the intensity of these have historically shown no consistent correlation with global warming or cooling.
    2. Water causes a positive feedback with respect to a green house effect. That is it amplifies the rise in temperature. For this to happen there must be something else causing a base increase in temperature. It isn't the sun getting hotter (thankfully).
    archer
    27th Oct 2016
    11:50pm
    It's real boys and girls
    PIXAPD
    28th Oct 2016
    12:07pm
    What Climate change?

    I go by a much older climate report

    'While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.' Genesis 8:22, amen.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    12:10pm
    Does that work at the South Pole?

    28th Oct 2016
    2:33pm
    Yep global warming ... er... climate change is real!
    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/yes-the-climate-changes/

    Globe has been warming for over 300 years!
    Fastest rate of warming was in the 18th Century!
    http://tinyurl.com/633v2f4

    351yr CET Temperature Record of wqarming Refutes Accelerated Warming http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html
    Young Simmo
    28th Oct 2016
    2:37pm
    LUVCO2 sorry pal, but the Earth has warmed up and cooled off probably a million times since it first separated from the big lump 7,500 million years ago.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    2:40pm
    What a crappy source!

    Note its use of the word "alarmism".

    What's wrong with the report written by our Australian climatologists?

    28th Oct 2016
    2:37pm
    Alarmism: Claiming Normal as Abnormal Began on a Global Scale with Ozone
    With the introduction of the new paradigm of environmentalism and the subset global warming, natural events were presented as unnatural. The strategy provided a ‘no lose’ situation. People were easily misled because they don’t know what is normal. The few with some knowledge were easily marginalized as skeptics or conspiracy theorists.

    ONE EXAMPLE:
    Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.
    This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. Besides, the variability is wide as a 2011 Journal of Geophysical Research article explains,
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251429262_Dramatic_interannual_changes_of_perennial_Arctic_sea_ice_linked_to_abnormal_summer_storm_activity

    It is another example of alarmists and uninformed media reporting a natural situation as unnatural. It is a lie of omission because they only presented facts that suited their story, but lying and deception are now standard and condoned practice for some people. Apparently for them the end justifies the means.

    ... the purpose of the Ozone scare as a trial run for the CO2 scare and the deception to follow. It had all the components; a false claim of change being due to human activity, it was false because it assumed incorrectly that UV radiation, which creates ozone, was constant; use of the claim for a political agenda; and manufactured scientific evidence to support demands for political action.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/

    28th Oct 2016
    2:39pm
    LET'S NOT FOLLOW OBAMA'S SO-CALLED "LEAD"
    Yes, Earth’s atmosphere is warming. It has been, off and on, for 150 years. What causes it? CO2, natural cycles, or some combination? Sun and ocean current cycles correlate better with global temperature than CO2.

    If CO2 doesn’t control Earth’s temperature, why has our government spent some $150 billion on “green energy” alone—not to mention billions on research to bolster belief in man-made warming—over the last 15 years?

    What do we have to show for it? We lost $500 million when solar panel maker Solyndra went bankrupt. In 2009 we subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion. Six are bankrupt and 5 floundering. In 2015 Sun Edison, America’s largest “green energy” company, went bankrupt, costing us $3 billion. Abergeo, the largest international solar energy company, threatens bankruptcy costing us $2.5 billion. We’ve committed $3.5 billion toward a $100 billion climate fund for developing nations.

    Projected future costs are staggering. Clinton wants to build and install 500 million new solar panels in the next four years. The Institute for Energy Research estimates this will cost $205 billion—plus higher electric rates for consumers. She wants all residential energy to be “green” by 2025.

    A peer-reviewed study concludes that full implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which Clinton supports, would cost $1–$2 trillion per year ($70–$144 trillion from 2030–2100). The payoff? An inconsequential 0.3?F reduction in global average temperature.

    28th Oct 2016
    2:42pm
    MUCH NEEDED PERSPECTIVE ON INSANE "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD" CLAIMS
    The UN IPCC estimated in their latest Assessment Report that surface temperature, averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, increased only 1.53ºF between 1880 to 2012.

    Further, a significant portion of that rise must have been part of a natural climate cycle, as the Earth had been exiting the Little Ice Age.

    So, man’s contribution to the change that has occurred over those 132 years is something less than 1.53ºF -- anything but catastrophic.

    BUT HOLD ON -- stating a 132-year long change in terms of 0.01ºF makes no sense at all.
    Why?
    Over most of those 132 years, the instruments we used to measure temperature could only measure to an accuracy of one entire degree!

    Did you hear governments and media claim recently that 2014 and 2015 were “the hottest years on record”?

    Well, those reports claimed that 2014 broke the record by seven hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit (0.07ºF), and that 2015 broke the record by 29 hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit (0.29ºF).

    https://pjmedia.com/blog/trump-is-right-on-climate-change-dems-and-gop-must-follow-him/

    28th Oct 2016
    2:45pm
    Supposedly hot globe was a very cold year at the South Pole and a very average year in Australia
    Here are some other trends that didn’t make the media.
    We all heard about the record heat in the Arctic, but we didn’t hear about the unusual cold in Antarctica where running twelve month averages are equal to the lowest recorded since satellites began in 1979.
    So carbon dioxide causes a hot Arctic and a cold Antarctic, and both at the same time.* Where’s the global warming?
    Hot March in Australia but not a hot year
    We heard about how warm autumn nights made the hottest March in Australia, but we didn’t hear about the most ordinary year that the last 12 months was.
    Slightly cooler than average, if you care, but who would?
    We’ve had 21 years of no warming downunder.
    We have to stop that.
    So fire up the windmills and put another $Billion on the barbie!

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/hot-globe-means-very-cold-year-at-the-south-pole-very-average-year-in-australia/

    28th Oct 2016
    2:46pm
    LUVCO2 - What's wrong with the report written by our Australian climatologists?

    That IS the topic.

    28th Oct 2016
    2:49pm
    OH, AND DON'T FORGET ALL THOSE SUSPICIOUS HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS!
    HERE IS AN EXCELLENT GALLERY OF THESE ....

    SUSPICIOUS Alterations To Climate Data
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/alterations-to-climate-data/
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    2:55pm
    Rubbish

    28th Oct 2016
    3:02pm
    IF there is a signal due to CO2, it still hasn't emerged from background noise pic.twitter.com/Jz7f6Jq4tB
    NATURAL VARIABILITY DOMINATES
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/17/new-paper-how-much-of-the-global-temperature-change-is-natural/
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    3:06pm
    Please discuss the Australian climatologists' report, not garbage from conspiracy websites.

    28th Oct 2016
    3:07pm
    At least 2/3 of Australia's warming due to SUSPICIOUS “adjustments”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/two-thirds-of-australias-warming-due-to-adjustments-according-to-84-historic-stations/#more-41832
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    3:10pm
    Please publish the BOM's response to those allegations.

    28th Oct 2016
    3:12pm
    CSIRO and BOM should apologise for this scaremongering


    The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology this week published their latest State of the Climate report:


    Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability.

    Strangely, the report fails to explain why past predictions by the Bureau and the CSIRO of a permanent drought turned out so wrong.

    Here is the Bureau, quoted in 2008:


    IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation's most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

    "Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones....

    "There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent..."

    Here is the Bureau's Jones in 2007:


    As Jones wrote to the University of East Anglia the year before: "Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse..."

    Here is the CSIRO, quoted in 2009:


    A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change...

    ''It's reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,'' said the bureau's Bertrand Timbal. '

    'In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.''

    Yet, with floods and rains and filling dams is so many states, an author of this latest report gets a very soft interview from the ABC's Fran Kelly, who also fails to note an astonishing bit of cherry-picking that discredits the whole report.

    The report's authors present this alleged evidence of man-made climate change hurting us:


    Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

    In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11% since the mid-1990s in April–October rainfall in the continental southeast. Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997.

    Note the strange decision, given our rainfall records go back more than a century, to pick apparently random and inconsistent dates - 1970 and 1997 and "mid 1990s" - as a base point from which to measure declines in rainfall. Note further that this decline is curiously only in patches of the country, and then only in - again - inconsistent periods, "May–July " and "April–October".

    These are classic tell-tales of cherry picking - tricking to find some arbitrary period that can produce a statistical and scary decline which you can then present as troubling evidence that global warming is drying up our rains. (Even then, none of this comes even close to showing the "permanent" drought the agencies once claimed were leaving our cities desperately short of drinking water.)

    This trickery becomes even clearer when you check the Bureau's rainfall records for the whole past century or more. Amazingly, the impact of man-made warming becomes impossible to detect.

    Here, again, is what the State of the Climate report says:


    Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

    But here is the Bureau's own record of rainfall for southern Australia:




    Rain - southern Australia























    Judged over the century, then, there is no evidence at all of rainfall decline.

    Again, from the Bureau's report:


    In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.

    Rainfall in the south-west is indeed declining, and has done for most of the past 120 years, the first half of which almost no scientist would blame on man's emissions, which even the IPCC says only had a real effect after World War 11:




    Rain in south west

























    State of the Climate's authors also claim that "Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997".

    But the longer record for the south-east again shows no ahistoric change:




    Rain in south east

























    Once again, a decline from the unusually wet 1970s, but little sign of change over more than a century.

    And for the continent as a whole, more rain, not less - and certainly no permanent drought:




    Rain Australia

























    And as for the Murray Darling, that the Bureau once said was on "the verge of collapse":




    Murray Darling

























    This is disgraceful. The Bureau and the CSIRO must explain why they have fed us such scares.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/csiro-and-bureau-should-apologise-for-this-scare/news-story/a686f3a55cca9373b3c686ef0195c414
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    3:14pm
    Bolt?

    ROTFLMAO

    28th Oct 2016
    3:20pm
    The most compelling evidence of global warming in 2014 by "scientists" was record Antarctic Sea Ice & a Brutally Cold Winter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    28th Oct 2016
    3:23pm
    Warmists should be hungry for facts NOT LEFTIST/WARMIST SPIN
    A survey of poorly informed but successfully scared Guardian readers:
    "Diminishing food and water security and ruinous sea level rise are the leading climate change concerns of a section of the American electorate that is aghast at the lack of discussion of global warming during the presidential debate."
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/11/climate-change-voices-of-america-voters

    Food shortages?
    World grain glut set to enter fourth year.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c6c24ff4-46c7-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc6c24ff4-46c7-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2F66f54f58e58238e8508fc3265e205ce3&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz4E9QAkFod

    Water shortages?:
    Manmade global warming greatly increased the risk of extreme rain affecting the French capital, analysis shows.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/10/paris-floods-made-almost-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-say-scientists

    28th Oct 2016
    3:29pm
    A Warming planet is helping humans: Global warming policies deadlier than global warming!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    Winter deaths exceed summer deaths, not just in Britain but also countries with very warm summers!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    climate change is good for the world. Scientific consensus: warmer temps do more good than harm
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    GOOD NEWS (FOR SCEPTICS):Death rate from droughts, floods & storms has dropped by 98% since the 1920s!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    The greatest benefit of climate change comes not from temp change but from CO2 itself! http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    CO2 level increase from 0.03% to 0.04% of the Air has produced 14% productivity increase of ecosystems!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

    28th Oct 2016
    3:33pm
    Ah, the classic mistake there.

    Global warming isn't happening, but it's already helping us.

    A bit of logic, PLEASE.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    4:06pm
    Who said global warming ain't happening?
    Not me!
    It's been happening for over 300 years, according to the CET record, if you care to look at my earlier posts.

    The scaremongering "scientists" who published this report claim it's all due to trace gas, plant food CO2!
    Some might be, but most global 3warming is due to NATURAL VARIABILITY!
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    6:03pm
    No, no scientist is claiming that it's ALL to CO2.

    It's interesting that those who use the most extreme conspiracy sites as sources attribute equally insane claims to those they disagree with.

    Some of us use real science.
    dstark
    28th Oct 2016
    3:42pm
    No one disputes climate is changing - the globe sometime warms, some times cools - always has, always will, but not because of mankind.
    Anonymous
    28th Oct 2016
    6:00pm
    So you know better than Australia's best climatologists?

    What arrogance!
    HarrysOpinion
    28th Oct 2016
    10:52pm
    It's elementary, Barak...elementary. Haven't heard from the "best" climatologists how to adapt to the climate change. Perhaps it's because all they can predict is doom and gloom but not how to survive it. That makes the "best' nothing but quacks.
    Anonymous
    29th Oct 2016
    7:36am
    A climatologists job is to understand, explain and predict climate, then having explained it, suggest ways of stopping it.

    I don't think it's their job to tell you how to adapt.

    Your post seems to be a classic example of shooting the messenger.

    29th Oct 2016
    7:22am
    yes, i care very much about rising global temperatures.

    i fear for the future of life on our planet and cannot understand why people continue to have so many children and assume they will be OK. overpopulation, overpollution and a large number or ignorant and irresponsible people are our biggest problems today, along with so many violent men and their obsession with machines and war.
    Anonymous
    29th Oct 2016
    7:38am
    Your hatred of men doesn't help much, nor is it rational. In my lifetime one of the biggest warmongers in the western world was Margaret Thatcher.

    I will be surprised if Hillary Clinton turns out to be a great peace-maker.
    HarrysOpinion
    29th Oct 2016
    11:53pm
    One of the reasons USSR collapsed, the Berlin Wall was demolished, East European Communist satellite countries became liberated was because of the hand that Margaret Thatcher played. Catch up on your reading about Gorbachev's biographies and educate yourself.

    30th Oct 2016
    4:13pm
    A Citizen’s Guide to global warming Evidence
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1417

    A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence: global warming can be dangerous. But, so far as we know, only politically and financially!! So unless you have balls of steel, as I do, beware what you say on this topic!

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1417


    10 Startling Charts Completely Debunk the global warming Scam

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/10-startling-charts-that-completely.html?spref=tw


    Basic #globalwarming FACTS

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm

    30th Oct 2016
    4:20pm
    OTHER (IGNORED) explanations for the recent warming include:

    a. Decrease in explosive volcanic eruptions in recent years.

    b. Increased intensity of El Nino in the last few years.

    c. More carbon aerosols (soot) in the atmosphere.

    d. Soot on snow.

    e. Decreased stratospheric ozone.

    f. Internal changes in circulation such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Arctic Oscillation (AO).

    30th Oct 2016
    4:29pm
    ROTFLMAO Over a Century’s Worth of Failed Eco-Climate Quotes & Disinformation http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    4:55pm
    I still regard Australia's best climatologists as being more likely to be right than your various blog sources.

    Remember, these climatologists are paid salaries by the government, a government that would prefer to not hear what they're saying.
    dstark
    30th Oct 2016
    5:17pm
    Barak, the govt is limiting their funding because their work is merely self serving. When I contacted CSIRO about inconsistencies in their reports, they promised to phone me back, but they did not.

    Three days ago, at 8:29pm you said: Your "facts" are wrong.
    Please identify which facts you think I am in error.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2016
    5:20pm
    Self serving?

    That makes no sense.

    How can something that causes you to lose your job be self serving?

    31st Oct 2016
    11:18am
    A FORMER CSIRO CLIMATE SCIENTIST SOCKS IT TO CURRENT CSIRO "SCIENTISTS"
    Garth Paltridge offers a solution to CSIRO climate scientists suffering from the “settled” syndrome

    Letter to The Mercury published 18/3/15
    Keeping quiet about the uncertainty of climate prediction has at last come back to bite the climate research community on its collective bottom. The obvious question has finally been asked in public – namely, if the science behind disastrous climate change is so settled, why continue to spend money on it? It is not surprising that CSIRO is now cutting the number of its staff involved in climate research.

    May I suggest to the remaining staff that they might profitably spend their time attempting to disprove the theory of disastrous global warming rather than simply finding data to support it? There is more than enough uncertainty about climate change to give them a very good chance of upsetting what must be one of the world’s greatest scientific applecarts. Since the upsetting of applecarts is what scientists are paid to do, it shouldn’t be long before they are once again showered with money and roses. Just think of it – massive reward simply by returning to a research philosophy fundamental to scientific progress. It is known as scepticism.

    Garth Paltridge
    Sandy Bay, Tasmania
    _____________
    Garth Paltridge is a former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist and was Director of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He wrote The Climate Caper, reviewed here. He’s a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), which is now called the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Science (IMAS), University of Tasmania. In his career, he worked as an atmospheric physicist, predominantly with CSIRO and briefly with NOAA , and has published more than 100 books and scientific papers.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/garth-paltridge-offers-a-solution-to-csiro-climate-scientists-suffering-from-the-settled-syndrome/
    Janran
    31st Oct 2016
    12:05pm
    5 points:
    1) Science isn't perfect, people aren't perfect - yes, even you and me. So lets listen to those qualified to comment and take note of those whose research is muzzled by Corporate interests and governments who are sponsored by corporate greed (LNP and Labor).
    2) Why would BOM and CSIRO scientists go out on a limb by predicting global warming worsening, unless it were true, when it is against the Government who employs them? Those scientists risked being muzzled and were ACTUALLY SACKED!
    3) People in southern Australia have been whingeing all year about the cold winter, but where I live in northern NSW, I didn't even put the heater on ALL YEAR. Also, for a region that used to be all rainforest (before it was cut down in the last 200 years), I am now having to water the lawn to stop it from dying. But I know it will rain, and very hard, again. So, parochial comments like "It's been so cold this year and therefore, global warming is a lie" is simply ignorant of the word "global".
    4) How long have we been studying the ice caps of Mars? How can anyone draw any reasonable conclusions from such a tiny database?
    5) Maxchugg asks:
    " If warming is real, if the additional heat has sunk into the depths of the oceans, then why have the polar icecaps refused to melt? How could warm water defy the laws of convection which dictate that it must rise to the surface and the coldest water must remain in the ocean depths? "
    I understand that the warmer ocean (salt) water IS melting the fresh water icecaps, but since salt water freezes at a lower temperature than does fresh water, perhaps this explains the anomaly Maxchugg. The salt water is being diluted by fresh water which will re-freeze sooner than salt water. Once ocean temperatures reach a critical point of warming, all hell will break loose on low-lying communities around the world, which includes our major cities.
    Janran
    31st Oct 2016
    7:59pm
    I agree with both your posts, Eddy.

    I'm skeptical LUVCO2, about research paid for by corporate-funded sponsors. They are paying for their own version of the truth, and it ain't science. Unfortunately, most laboratories are corporate-funded by Big Pharma and Big Ag, so our only chance for the truth will come from Government-funded research. Even scientific research in Universities is mainly corporate-funded in Australia. They know they'll get the cleverest graduates doing their Masters and PhD's, and the corporations want to scoop them up for employment. And once they are employed, they'll be out on their ear if they upset any applecarts. Just look at what has happened to scientists exposing the damage to bees from glysophate and nicotinoids (excuse my spelling) in RoundUp. They have been suppressed, ridiculed and sacked if they don't toe the company line. Meanwhile, more chemicals are approved by the FDA, even though they are banned in Europe.
    The same thing has happened to scientists in cancer research, where they've been bullied, struck off and had their research stolen and patented, never to see the light of day, simply because it didn't follow the established cancer treatment (and fill the coffers of Pharmaceutical companies).

    But it seems there are some among us who are happy for your children's children to be more inundated by salt water, experience lower standards of living and perhaps world wide famine, and suffer more deaths caused by extreme storms and bush fires, than need be.

    Who cares who or what caused global warming? Let's just do our best to not make it worse. What's important is that we act to stop it if we can, AND we can - by stop cutting down forests and stop burning fossil fuels. There are alternatives readily available. It's pretty simple really. The hard thing is to persuade corporations to switch tack, but they have too much invested, and since all they are required to care about is money and power, they will stop at nothing. They will dupe otherwise sensible and intelligent people with false science, because they are getting desperate now.
    dstark
    1st Nov 2016
    12:01pm
    Janran, As global warming is caused the sun, we could control global warming if:
    1 we could stop the earth from having elliptical orbits and instead have spherical orbits, so there would be no variation, and
    2 we could make the sun have constant radiation, instead of sometimes being so hot, and other times not hot enough to make plants grow.

    It would help this debate if folk better understood the real science of climate.
    Janran
    1st Nov 2016
    1:05pm
    Changing the Earth's orbits sounds like science fiction to me, dstark. Even if you solved a problem by doing it, wouldn't you create a whole new batch of problems, maybe worse than the original problem?

    And what does this have to do with "the real science of climate."? Better we deal with the immediate problem with knowledge at hand, to deal with the possibility of catastrophic global warming. Like you suggest, let's grow more forests, let's stop clearing forests and let's stop burning fossil fuels. We'll need a world revolution to succeed with that, unfortunately.

    The nature of Nature is that it is constantly changing, which logically leads to the scientific method always being a bit wrong because it can only gather data from the past. In any scientific experiment, the range of variables present can negate any real or valuable conclusions.

    There are probably a lot of us on this blog that agree in principle to our reality of global warming, but we don't need to be distracted by things like changing the Earth's orbits. Those profiting from mining and burning fossil fuels, and those who have stymied investment in renewable energy possibilities, are rubbing their hands in glee, when they hear us being distracted from the main game, which is: STOP CLEARING FORESTS AND STOP MINING AND BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

    1st Nov 2016
    2:22pm
    Janran wrote
    "Who cares who or what caused global warming? Let's just do our best to not make it worse. What's important is that we act to stop it if we can, AND we can - by stop cutting down forests and stop burning fossil fuels."

    So where does most of the CO2 in the atmosphere come form?
    WHY, FROM MOTHER NATURE HERSELF!

    32 CO2 MOLECULES FROM NATURE vs 1 "MANMADE" CO2 MOLECULE
    And that 1 extra CO2 molecule has major effects on climate????????????

    We also have a DIMINISHING INFLUENCE of increased CO2 on temperature which is logarithmic, so that there are strongly diminishing effects from extra CO2.
    We are past the point where any extra CO2 has much effect on temperature.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/

    1st Nov 2016
    2:33pm
    We should panic over an increase in atmospheric trace gas, plant food CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere??
    AND WITH 75% OF THAT COMING FROM MOTHER NATURE!
    YOU'RE INSANE!!

    CO2 CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO HIT ZERO BY 2030!
    pic.twitter.com/u3sB4SphKP

    1st Nov 2016
    2:35pm
    Guess we need to tell commercial greenhouse owners they’ve been wrong all along.
    They'll be happy to hear they won’t have to buy all that extra CO2 "pollution" to feed their plants anymore!!

    1st Nov 2016
    2:38pm
    GLOBAL WARMING HOAX!
    In a sample of 85,800 air molecules, there are ....
    32 CO2 molecules from mother nature, and,
    1 "manmade" CO2 molecule!
    http://tinyurl.com/8a48ybg

    1st Nov 2016
    2:44pm
    Trace gas, plant food CO2:
    The Biggest Threat Earth Has Ever Faced??????????????????????
    It has risen from 0.03% to 0.04%! Mainly due to outgassing from warmer oceans, not man.
    AND 0.03% COMING FROM NATURE!


    Adding a 2nd blind to a window blind absorbing 99.9% of light has very little effect, because almost all of the light is already absorbed.
    Alarmists assume that additional warmth due to added CO2 is basic physics, because they don’t understand basic physics.
    Janran
    4th Nov 2016
    1:20pm
    I don't appreciate you calling me insane, LUVCO2, even if you are calling 97% of climate scientists insane in the same breath.

    One thing I do know about physics is this: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you deny this also?
    Jason
    2nd Nov 2016
    10:18pm
    So much denialism. So little sense. I'll go with the climate science experts thanks, rather than listen to some of these weird theories.