[justaskin (OP)]

As requested.Do you support the idea that the climate is changing in a catastrophic way or is just the result of normal climate change.
 
I don't and have been asked for some proof from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
I have only used the site of Sydney Airport if people want to trawl through the many other sites in Australia to prove me wrong then go for it.
First rainfall for the years 1971 to 2000

Sorry I can not get the links for temp and rainfall to work.So I am afraid you will have to take my summary for both for the time being

You will note that the annual average rainfall over this period was larger than the long term average.
Next the temperature for the same years
This does show a slight increase on annual average of 0.1 not exactly the 1 degree quoted in other parts of the site.
And finally severe weather which we get mainly in the form of tropical cyclones.

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/faq/index.shtml

You will need to go down to the section climatology  and click on question 6 of that section.
In essence it says that if anything there has been a slight decrease in the number of severe cyclones.
All in all not much to suggest we are in the middle of a catastrophe.

I was also ask for some proof that the  Australian CSIRO our premier scientific organization was not the trusted body it once was.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_heavy_says_dont_trust_csiros_scares/

This article quotes Art Raiche who worked for CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 of which he held the rank of Chief Research Scientist.

Now for the IPCC.

Your chances of finding a scientist in the IPCC who disagrees with climate change  are less than finding a Muslim  in a mosque who disagrees with Islam.

And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions what are they trying to hide.

And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it.
One would think that if you are all in a boat with a hole in it it is counter productive to be arguing who made the hole better for everyone to start bailing.But in the case of the developing countries not only are they not helping they seem to be intent to bail water into the boat.

As I have said in other threads here climate change is about two things
MONEY and POWER

Cheers
justaskin

[dentstudent]

Just a note - the first 2 links don't work, at least from where I am. They also have the same address....

[justaskin (OP)]

Thank you dentstudent.I can give details of how to get to the data but it is of some length.
I did not think it was going to work when I also noticed they had the same address.See my edit.

Cheers
justaskin

[dentstudent]

justaskin - have a look at this link:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112&period=1970

It will provide access to trend data for a variety of periods and for a variety of climate variables. It may be useful in your original post.

[Don_1]

There can be no doubt that facts and figures can be found to prove or disprove global warming/climate change. In some cases even the same facts & figures can be used to serve either purpose.

It's a bit like you saying 'the glass is half empty' while I say 'the glass is half full'.

Look at it this way though; if GW/CC is not happening, or if it is, but not as a result of man's actions, would it be damaging for man to reduce the extent of man made pollution?

If GW/CC is happening as a result of man's pollution and we do nothing about it, what would the consequences be?

Is it not better to er on the side of prudence and reduce our use of fossil fuels, reduce our waste etc.? Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?

The problem is, if we get it wrong, we may not have the chance to put things to right.

Biodiversity is essential to the world's ability to support life. Can we afford the relentless spread of man to wipe out rain forests, threaten microscopic sea life and cause countless species to become extinct?

[dentstudent]

And just a comment about the typhoons. They are driven by rising warm moist air. Since the patterns of where this moist air will be are changing, it would follow that where and the number of typhoons that form will change. So, it would not surprise me if there was a predicted reduction in expected typhoons in and around any given area. It is because of the changing climate that this is occuring.

[justaskin (OP)]

Thanks denstudent that site will do for now but as a trend it does not account for individual places.But even from the trends we are only looking at 50mm of rain and 0.1 to 0.2 deg of temp.
The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.

Cheers
justaskin

[dentstudent]

I think that the thing to do is to identify ONE thing to discuss to its (logical) conclusion, and try not to bring in things that are irrelevent to the discussion. We (whoever wants to be involved in the discussion) should all agree on one topic, for example, changing precipitation patterns or temperature gradients etc. Since it is your thread justaskin, perhaps you would like to propose the first topic as a hypothesis?

[paul.fr]

The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.

I think there maybe a little misunderstanding here. It is not the quantity of sever storms that are predicted to increase but their strength and severity, infact their quantity is predicted to fall...fewer, but more severe.

[_Stefan_]

Climate change is happening to the Earth as a whole. Localised measurements may or may not follow the trend.

[justaskin (OP)]

Look at it this way though; if GW/CC is not happening, or if it is, but not as a result of man's actions, would it be damaging for man to reduce the extent of man made pollution?

If GW/CC is happening as a result of man's pollution and we do nothing about it, what would the consequences be?

Is it not better to er on the side of prudence and reduce our use of fossil fuels, reduce our waste etc.? Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?

What you are talking about here is insurance.So how much insurance should you have.You don't pay more in insurance then the cost of the item you are insuring.
You say we should err on the side of caution.Should we also take precautions against the world getting colder or just against it getting warmer.

The problem is, if we get it wrong, we may not have the chance to put things to right.

Exactly. If we go for warming and it doesn't happen then what.I think it is better to risk warming then to risk cold.

Biodiversity is essential to the world's ability to support life. Can we afford the relentless spread of man to wipe out rain forests, threaten microscopic sea life and cause countless species to become extinct?

On this we agree but don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon.In fact it is almost heiricy.

I think that the thing to do is to identify ONE thing to discuss to its (logical) conclusion, and try not to bring in things that are irrelevent to the discussion. We (whoever wants to be involved in the discussion) should all agree on one topic, for example, changing precipitation patterns or temperature gradients etc. Since it is your thread justaskin, perhaps you would like to propose the first topic as a hypothesis?

Maybe it is just my paranoia kicking in but there seems to be some kind of concerted effort to close this discussion down.I was first asked to to post in a separate thread,which I did.And now I am being asked to break the topic down into how ever many small parts.
The topic is climate change.If that is not appropriate then remove the thread.

Cheers
justaskin

[justaskin (OP)]

The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.

I think there maybe a little misunderstanding here. It is not the quantity of sever storms that are predicted to increase but their strength and severity, infact their quantity is predicted to fall...fewer, but more severe.

No no misunderstanding.More and more severe.
Now its your turn show us the figures that support you assertions.

Cheers
justaskin

[justaskin (OP)]

Climate change is happening to the Earth as a whole. Localised measurements may or may not follow the trend.

So how has this manifested itself in your part of the world has Melbourne become tropical over the last ten years.
Tell me what would your definition of climate change be?.

Cheers
justaskin

[Don_1]

justakin, as I wrote in my post:

Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?

I don't think any of us are qualified to decide which is the best course of action (or in-action) to take.

Australia is suffering from extreme heat right now, while the UK is enduring a harsh winter.

Is that Global warming, or climate change?

The Gulf & Jet streams have altered direction. To what? A direction they have never taken before, or the direction they used to take a few 1000 years ago?

You say

don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon

. Do you mean a downturn in the numbers of humans, or in the number of species? If humans, I certainly don't expect to see any reduction, quite the opposite. If the number of species, you may well be right. As some become extinct, so others evolve, but we can do more to ensure that we do not cause the extinction of species, which at the moment we do.

I agree with you that it is necessary to debate the whole issue, since different aspects are linked, but dentstudant is also right, in that trying to debate the whole issue gets very complicated.

What to do for the best, I do not know.

[dentstudent]

Maybe it is just my paranoia kicking in but there seems to be some kind of concerted effort to close this discussion down.I was first asked to to post in a separate thread,which I did.And now I am being asked to break the topic down into how ever many small parts.
The topic is climate change.If that is not appropriate then remove the thread.

Cheers
justaskin

No, there is no attempt to close it down. There is, however, an attempt to rationalise the discussion into sub-topics. In my experience, nothing is ever gained by trying to discuss a topic as large as climate change as one statement. It is therefore better to discuss individual elements within the broad subject. At the moment, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. All I'm saying is, let's agree one topic that we can have a discussion/debate about in an effort to improve everyone's understanding. We may reach a concensus on this topic, which means that we could then discuss another one. It also means that we will be able to construct a knowledge-base.

Justaskin, if you don't think that this is possible, then it is my opinion that it is impossible to have any sort of valuable discussion.

[justaskin (OP)]

Australia is suffering from extreme heat right now.  

No that is not correct two states South Australia and Victoria went through heatwave conditions a week or so back but that is not an unusual occurrence at this time of year.Most of the rest is under water.

Is that Global warming, or climate change?

No to me that is just Australia.
 

You say

don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon

. Do you mean a downturn in the numbers of humans, or in the number of species? If humans, I certainly don't expect to see any reduction, quite the opposite. If the number of species, you may well be right. As some become extinct, so others evolve, but we can do more to ensure that we do not cause the extinction of species, which at the moment we do.

I must have misunderstood your first reply but yes I was talking about humans.You say at the end of your quote that we are responsible for species extinction so how is more of us going to reverse that.
We have to reduce the number of humans on earth if we don't then us or the earth will do it for us.

Cheers
justaskin

 

[justaskin (OP)]

Justaskin, if you don't think that this is possible, then it is my opinion that it is impossible to have any sort of valuable discussion.

Ok dentstudent if it helps.So do I just open threads on each topic like
Temperature
Rain
Storms
IPCC
UNFCCC
Carbon trading
Etc?.
Thank you all for an entertaining night.Now I need to get some sleep so I can attend to more immediate matters.Reducing my golf handicap. []
There's another question"does golf cause climate change". []

Cheer
justaskin

[dentstudent]

If that it the way that you want to do it, then that's fine. I would propose to start with something tangible, such as one of the climate parameters since those are the drivers of the whole process.

[Karsten]

I am all in favor of scientists questioning the statements of other scientists. Especially when evidence is brought forward that may contradict current scientific truth.

I wonder though, and I have asked this question in several other places, whether there are still large, independent, professional science organizations that question the existence of global climate change and human activities as at least one of the major causes. It seems that those organizations would not support a theory if it was not sound.

Can we (relatively safely) assume that global climate change is happening and is influenced by human activities when the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,~150,000 members) says so too? How can you find better and more reliable scientific statements? Is what they officially declare just an opinion that can be swept to the side by any individual?

Whether this change is or will be "catastrophic" is difficult to say. It may be for some, it may not be for others. It may not be where you are but it may result in death and mayhem somewhere else.

[ukmicky]

I believe no one knows what is going on if anything.. The climate is governed by too many unknowns, and their is no real evidence that we are doing anything detrimental. The science is way to complicated and totally beyond us all.

Having said that i did enjoy reading this and its links. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0