Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As a Dehydrated Hydrographer, I'll leave it to Alex to cast an expert opinion on that ahem, half-page "paper". In the interim I think I'd be more likely to trust someone with a nasa.com email address rather than 4/6 people with the same surname and a Bigpond email address.

You say you are wary of people with an agenda to push to justify their own end, so we'll have to see if the Fitzhenry clan have one.

It's coming up as an "Invalid Attachment". Do you have a link please.

Originally Posted by AlexS

It's coming up as an "Invalid Attachment". Do you have a link please.

Oh dear, the original post that it was in seems to have gone missing.

Luckily, I have one that was prepared before......

Capture.JPG


It was said to have been "an ABC News thing", but searching the ABC for "Fitzhenry" yields one hit about sewerage outfalls (quoting two of the people in that Climate Debate document - jpg image above)
Sydney beaches: From 'septic tank' to billion dollar gems - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Searching for "Fort Denison" brings up about 10-12 hits (the oldest of which is 2015), none of which are anything to do with sea levels.

Searching for "Sea Level" brings up 205 pages of hits, and certainly the first 2 pages are all to do with rising sea levels....

Searching for "fort denison sea level" brings up nothing relevant (all sports links).

The reason the sea levels are rising is all the new ships being built and launched. Have you seen the size of those new cruise ships? Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer gets his Titanic II in the water!
Archimedes Principle.

Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer himself gets in the water.

Originally Posted by doug3030

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience.

I did watch Q&A on Monday night and my impression was that the audience was 'stacked' with those that had been directly impacted by the fires. Typically Q&A selects its audience along political lines, with the composition selected being as close as possible to the voting proportions in the last election. The audience breakdown is announced at the beginning of each program. Applications to join the audience asks the following two questions:

11. If a federal election for the House of Representatives was held today, which party would you vote for? (If unsure which party are you leaning towards?)

Coalition (Liberal/National)

ALP

Greens

Undecided

Other

If other please specify:

12. Are you a member of a political party?*

Yes

No

No doubt, but I don't know, some probably game that application to 'stack' the audience. But, I don't expect either side of the political spectrum would be exempt from that.

If anyone is feeling that the audience is always stacked, one way or the other, that might be more a reflection of their own position on the political spectrum. Most people think they are closer to the centre of politics than they actually are and as a result they interpret a normal distributions as being skewed away from them. That's human nature.

The conservative end of my family think the ABC is full of lefties engaged in a lefty plot against their values and beliefs. The progressive end of my family are very comfortable with the ABC and think of it as an unbiased and middle of the road broadcaster and a bulwark to the other media in Australia that is dominated by the right wing Murdoch press. That progressive end of my family are also more engaged with international sources of news and left wing analysis that they don't expect to get from the ABC. Each of us views the ABC through our own biases.

As for agenda, mine was the type world I will be passing on to my grandchildren as they pick up the baton in the decades to come. I've been working on it for the last 50yrs. That timeline has to be brought forward now in the light of events this summer. I was never in the Alarmed group, more in the 'what can be do about this' group, but I'm definitely now in a Frustrated group that is yet to be categorised.

Those of us that want change won't change the views of the 'genuine' Denial group. I say genuine, as that group should not to be confused with the broader coalition on the right of politics that has boxed themselves into a corner with the denialists, unlike in the UK.

PM launches UN Climate Summit in the UK - GOV.UK

Also, ignore the weasel words from those on the right who are now politically shackled to the denialists by their previous strategies. Public utterances like, "I'm happy to be convinced one way or another", and "I'm open on this matter" are from the denialist's playbook where politicians want to appear to support and be acceptable to a range of positions out there in the electorate, but are designed to keep them aligned with the denialists.

When the political tipping point comes here in Australia many on the conservative side will sound and behave more like the current UK conservatives. viz, from Boris Johnson, yesterday...

"There can be no greater responsibility than protecting our planet, and no mission that a Global Britain is prouder to serve. 2020 must be the year we turn the tide on global warming– it will be the year when we choose a cleaner, greener future for all."

... and then the denialist voice, at least here in politics, will become far more muted and marginalised. It was a unique set of circumstances that gave rise to the current circumstances that prevail here. It's far more fragile than it appears.

So, what to do if you you are inclined like me to try and counter the influence of the MM CC denialists?

We oldies could always join the younger generation in protest on the streets. Despite the disparaging commentary from some, they have made a difference. They are doing a good job, so I'm inclined to leave that to them.

Another way is to follow the money. The CCD's high profile spruikers are being very well funded by some very wealthy individuals, stink tanks and corporations. Unfortunately the CCD funders are becoming more devious and it's becoming much harder to trace the money now that is being funneled through multiple conduits to them, but calling it out if you can is a powerful weapon. We in Australia don't like 'cash for comments' and exposing it neutralises the messages.

As a starting point, look at this following list of who Brenden Demelle (from DeSmog) considers to be the top 10 climate deniers worldwide and, more particularly, their funding sources.

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

...and, if you don't know who the CCDs are here and overseas, the following database lists them. No surprise about the first name on the list.

Global Warming Disinformation Database | DeSmog

If any of those are your local member of parliament or a senator from your state you are entitled in our democratic system to ask if they have received funding from any of the known CCD funding sources.

It is amazing how short that full list is (less than 500 individuals and 220 organisations) for them to have had such a disproportionate influence and impact on our current lives and futures globally.

Rather than arguing with them I've been thinking about how I can do my little bit to legitimately neutralise their disproportionate influence.

[QUOTE=NeilS;2172591]
The conservative end of my family think the ABC is full of lefties engaged in a lefty plot against their values and beliefs. The progressive end of my family are very comfortable with the ABC and think of it as an unbiased and middle of the road broadcaster and a bulwark to the other media in Australia that is dominated by the right wing Murdoch press.
QUOTE]

Neil

I see exactly that in our family too. There are one or two members that are to the right of Attila the Hun.

Even today as I travelled into work I heard Minister Dutton, on the radio, attempting to perpetuate the lie that the fires were started by arson: One or two quite likely, but not the majority: Lightning strikes would be the primary culprit with the secondary cause being the accumulation of combustible material exacerbating the ease of combustion.

Regards
Paul

That list of CCDers is all male.

Any women hold these denialist views?

Originally Posted by woodPixel

That list of CCDers is all male.

Any women hold these denialist views?

Far fewer, certainly (have a look at the stats in that link you and I both posted today). It's just one more reason why we need a lot more women in Parliament. I'd be happy with about 1/3 men, and the rest women & others. TBH, men have had their time running the joint, and haven't done too good a job of it (which is primarily why we are in the current situation).

If a confirmed and self-confessed Evangelist like SmoKo can start to change his tune at least a wee bit then perhaps he might drag a few others with him. (ok, ok, it's only to suit a political end, and he certainly wouldn't have if the country hadn't turned on him BUT....it might be some kind of a result of a sort....I hope...)

Originally Posted by NeilS

I was never in the Alarmed group, more in the 'what can be do about this' group, but I'm definitely now in a Frustrated group that is yet to be categorised.

I have been alert but not alarmed for perhaps 2-3 years, but in the last 6-12 months I have been most definitely alarmed - just too many weather records being broken in a stupidly short period of time. I said to a couple of people back in October (after we had been on fire since mid-winter!) that I thought this coming summer might change a few minds. Maybe it has?

Originally Posted by NeilS

Public utterances like, "I'm happy to be convinced one way or another", and "I'm open on this matter" are from the denialist's playbook

Yes, but both statements are only missing one syllable each
"I'm unhappy to be convinced one way or another", and
"I'm not open on this matter"

Without going into Fitzhenry's publication in detail, it seems that he hasn't used the complete data set available. Data (collected by the former Maritime Service Board and its predecessors and successors, not the BoM, which simply archives the data) is available back to 1886. The data shown in the graph has been converted to a global height datum so it can be compared to other countries, but the relative heights are the same.
If you use the full data set, the increase in MSL is more noticeable.
Using monthly or even annual data to see trends is dangerous. it would be safer to use a (say) 10 year moving average. this tends to remove the 'noise' that Fitzhenry correctly mentions in his writing.

Screen Shot 2020-02-05 at 10.35.09 pm.jpg

Screen Shot 2020-02-05 at 10.20.39 pm.jpg

I have often considered that a rise in the ocean level is a good indicator of whether the planet is warming (not really in contention). Well, I had a few moments this evening doing sweet Fanny Adams and I did some sums based on 73% of the surface of the planet being covered with water and a radius of 6378Km. A 100mm rise in sea level would equate to approx 373,165,730,741,443Kl. That's quite a lot of salty wet stuff. It has to come from somewhere, but the ice caps are not melting so probably from all the increased rainfall.

Do let me know if I have made a nonsense of the figures. (I am sure you will).

Regads
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... but the ice caps are not melting so probably from all the increased rainfall.

They aren't? I thought there was considerable evidence to suggest they were (3 new islands discovered in the Arctic Sea, Greenland ice sheet diminishing, less sea ice for Polar Bears, and so on). I know that I read that the massive ice shelf detachment in the Antarctic a few months ago was not attributed to CC, but can't remember what it was attributed to.

Not to forget that the oceans also expand as they warm, without any additional water being added.


In any case, using the surface area figures shown in this search, I get:
510,072,000 km² total sa (dunno if that is assuming flat area or the area of the mountain sides as well - I've assumed flat)
70.8% is water so 361,132,000 km²
100mm is 0.0001 km
so 361,132,000 x 0.0001 = 36,113 km³ of water to get a 100mm rise
A kilolitre is a cubic metre
Therefore 36,113 km³ is multiplied by 1000 three times, so
36,113,000,000,000 kL aka 36.1 trillion kL

I think....

(that does not take into account the increased water surface area as the water encroaches into the landscape - that is anything from zero sa increase at steep sided locations like fjords, up to very large increases in sa in very flat places like the Florida Everglades, Mississippi & Amazon deltas etc - that would mean a higher number than shown above, or that the number shown would yield slightly less than a 100mm rise)

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Imagine what will happen when Clive Palmer himself gets in the water.

I think Clive has been out of his depth for quite a while.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

They aren't? I thought there was considerable evidence to suggest they were (3 new islands discovered in the Arctic Sea, Greenland ice sheet diminishing, less sea ice for Polar Bears, and so on). I know that I read that the massive ice shelf detachment in the Antarctic a few months ago was not attributed to CC, but can't remember what it was attributed to.

Ahem! That was tongue in cheek, but the computer I was using would not allow one of these:

.

Of course, the ice caps are melting. The northern lump much more so than the southern. You got up too early this morning and before I was able to edit my post. So here it is in spades:



I found the sums easier if I converted the radius of the earth to metre. I used the formula for the area of sphere = 4 x Pi x R2. x .1 being the depth I was considering x73%. Some while back I heard the oceans on average have in fact increased by 120mm, but I don't recall the source so that would need some verification.

Regards
Paul

Is there any correlation between the melting Arctic and to a lesser degree the Antarctic and the recent large shift in the north magnetic pole (which is affected by the magma core of the earth) westwards.