SA Footy

Looks like its the end of the Family First Party this week in the Federal arena anyway, - have been trying to think of what it is that they actually achieved in the time that they were there - cant really think of anything - Did they ever get any bills passed through the parliament?

Must really confuse the Assemblies of God Church - to see the Catholic DLP taking their place. Maybe their brand is just superior?

Whilst researching for another post I visited Senator Fieldings climate change page and found a serious error in his interpretation of climate change data.

Here is a graph he has published on his webpage, showing the global temperature record from 1995 to 2009:The caption on his graph says "CO2 is rising but global temperature isn't rising". He is right about the CO2 (carbon dioxide) but wrong about the temperature. He has based his conclusion on only a small sample of the historical temperature record - that includes 1998 which was a relatively hot year and also 2008 which was a relatively cool year. The small sample gives a temperature record that appears to show that temperatures are not rising.

However here is the full instrumental temperature record, which clearly shows the global temperature trend is rising:The CO2 figures on Mr. Fieldings graph appear to be correct - the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has steadily increased since industrialisation - from about 280ppm back then to the current level of about 395ppm - a rise of over 40%.

I hope the new crop of Senators have a better understanding of climate change than Mr. Fielding...

But isn't a 130 year sample also but a snippet in the history of the 3rd rock from the Sun?

Disclaimer: I don't know what I think about climate change as I haven't bothered to look into it, but all parties seem to provide whatever evidence in whatever format they need to support their case, while ignoring anything that may support the alternative view. Typical politics, really.

smac wrote:But isn't a 130 year sample also but a snippet in the history of the 3rd rock from the Sun?

Disclaimer: I don't know what I think about climate change as I haven't bothered to look into it, but all parties seem to provide whatever evidence in whatever format they need to support their case, while ignoring anything that may support the alternative view. Typical politics, really.

Yes, the 130 year sample is also a small snippet since the end of the "Little Ice Age" that ended during the 1850 to 1890 period.
Perspective comes in the longer term view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoclimatology

i was surprised his last act in parliament was to sink the joke plebiste under immense pressure from Day and Abbott. I am no fan of Steve's but respect him for having the courage to stand tall and make the right decision.

I keep looking at this thread title and thinking it's about cricket.

Dogwatcher wrote:I keep looking at this thread title and thinking it's about cricket.

LOL anything to get a few more people onto the Politics Forum!

smac wrote:But isn't a 130 year sample also but a snippet in the history of the 3rd rock from the Sun?

Yep - however I only included instrumental records (ie those directly measured by scientific instruments) as these pertain to the modern era that Mr. Fielding was referring to and the instrumental records were sufficient to demonstrate the error that he has made.

smac wrote:...all parties seem to provide whatever evidence in whatever format they need to support their case, while ignoring anything that may support the alternative view. Typical politics, really.

The worlds scientists have been quite clear for many years about climate change. This is what the latest science says:

It is beyond reasonable doubt that human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate. A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – with carbon dioxide being the most important – as the primary cause of the observed warming. Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation. Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.

How the politicians and media have handled the scientific information is where the problem lies.

You may also be interested in reading about the Merchants of Doubt

Psyber wrote:Yes, the 130 year sample is also a small snippet since the end of the "Little Ice Age" that ended during the 1850 to 1890 period. Perspective comes in the longer term view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoclimatology

Agreed Psyber - Palaeoclimatology (the history of climate) is an invaluable field of study as it teaches us about what has caused changes in our climate and atmosphere over the life of the earth.

Through Palaeoclimatology climate scientists have learnt more about the role of greenhouse gases in heating the planet and about what natural causes historically triggered ice ages to start and finish.

This knowledge, along with other fields such as physics and thermodynamics, has enabled climate scientists to conclude that the current warming cannot be explained by natural causes but that it is primarily caused by the buildup in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity.

I've posted this graph elsewhere on this forum but it's probably worth posting again - it shows the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere with the data obtained from both Palaeoclimatology and direct measurement:

fish- could you please post a graph of the trend once the Australian Carbon Tax begins next year? Im expecting a sharp decline

Banker wrote:fish- could you please post a graph of the trend once the Australian Carbon Tax begins next year? Im expecting a sharp decline

It will be slightly less of an increase than if Tony Abbott's Direct Action Plan is put into effect.

(Although there won't be enough space for anyone to live after he plants trees on more land than we have to fulfill his promises) .

Banker wrote:fish- could you please post a graph of the trend once the Australian Carbon Tax begins next year?

Sorry Banker I'm not too good at making graphs - I just use ones other people have made. But if I find one I'll post it for you.

fish wrote:

Banker wrote:fish- could you please post a graph of the trend once the Australian Carbon Tax begins next year?

Sorry Banker I'm not too good at making graphs - I just use ones other people have made. But if I find one I'll post it for you.

Ok but i'll only accept it if its made using MS Paint with any conflicting data omitted

fish wrote:.... I've posted this graph elsewhere on this forum but it's probably worth posting again - it shows the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere with the data obtained from both Palaeoclimatology and direct measurement:

Where is the original source of that graph on the net, Fish?
I've only found versions without the bit you have circled on the end added.
Are they the "flask air" figures added to the Ice Core graphs?

I still haven't been able to find out how directly comparable CO2 levels from flask air are with CO2 from air bubbles trapped in ice for many years.
[In theory some of the CO2 trapped in the ice could be absorbed from the bubbles if the ice liquefies at times under pressure, thus giving lower readings.]

Psyber wrote:I still haven't been able to find out how directly comparable CO2 levels from flask air are with CO2 from air bubbles trapped in ice for many years.
[In theory some of the CO2 trapped in the ice could be absorbed from the bubbles if the ice liquefies at times under pressure, thus giving lower readings.]

Psyber I have posted that comparison here.

The carbon dioxide levels measured from air bubbles in ice cores match the levels measured from air flasks very well...

fish wrote:

Psyber wrote:I still haven't been able to find out how directly comparable CO2 levels from flask air are with CO2 from air bubbles trapped in ice for many years.
[In theory some of the CO2 trapped in the ice could be absorbed from the bubbles if the ice liquefies at times under pressure, thus giving lower readings.]

Psyber I have posted that comparison here.

The carbon dioxide levels measured from air bubbles in ice cores match the levels measured from air flasks very well...

Thank you, Fish.
I'd already been in the UK 3 weeks when you posted that and hadn't found it on my return - I'd gone on May 17th and got back June 18th.
My May 30 post mentioning it was still unresolved in my mind was the only day I found time to get on line in the UK.

Because you hadn't replied to my concern about the comparability issue after I first asked it I'd assumed you didn't have the answer to hand.
I have saved the reference you have since offered: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
I have read it quickly now, and will look at it more analytically later.


PS: Apropos you opening sentence of June 6th: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30294&start=60
My not at first knowing the youngest Vostok ice core samples were 2300 years old would be a "monumental blunder" for someone trained in earth sciences, but in someone educating himself in the field they are just the ignorance of not having found it out yet.

I wouldn't lay that term on you for not knowing something in medical science, and, if you presented to me with questions about a medical condition you had, I would respect you for trying to learn the facts yourself rather than swallow whole the dogma of established opinion in medicine. I wouldn't try to put you down for not finding all the information at once and asking questions.

Scientific "proven fact" held by a vast majority can change.
An example was the firm belief in the medical science of the 1980s that people should not eat egg yolk because of the cholesterol content of it.
Anyone who challenged that "fact" faced being condemned and/or laughed at.
That "truth" has been proven wrong since and now we know eggs are actually protective to eat.
Of course, future "knowledge" could change that again.
The problem arises from interpreting the meaning of data - we can measure data objectively, but not its interpretation.

Psyber wrote:PS: Apropos you opening sentence of June 6th: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30294&start=60
My not at first knowing the youngest Vostok ice core samples were 2300 years old would be a "monumental blunder" for someone trained in earth sciences, but in someone educating himself in the field they are just the ignorance of not having found it out yet.

Psyber - to jump to a (false) conclusion about historical carbon dioxide levels that neglected to consider the last 2,300 years or so of records is, as I stated, a monumental blunder on your part.

I can't see how it can be described as anything less.

fish wrote:

Psyber wrote:PS: Apropos you opening sentence of June 6th: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30294&start=60
My not at first knowing the youngest Vostok ice core samples were 2300 years old would be a "monumental blunder" for someone trained in earth sciences, but in someone educating himself in the field they are just the ignorance of not having found it out yet.

Psyber - to jump to a (false) conclusion about historical carbon dioxide levels that neglected to consider the last 2,300 years or so of records is, as I stated, a monumental blunder on your part.

I can't see how it can be described as anything less.

As I said, at that stage I hadn't yet learned the information that the youngest available ice cores were 2300 years old.
Once you advised me of that I had no hesitation about revising my conclusion based on them and saying so here.
If you were learning for yourself in an area outside your training you may miss such things initially too.
If people come to me with medical questions based on incomplete information, I just politely point them to a source without the denigration component.

That component of your post makes you look like you were just being petty and rude because I was still trying to satisfy myself with the validity of comparing flask air directly with ice core bubble air instead of responding by accepting, immediately and blindly, the conclusion you have reached, when you pointed out one error in my process

Interesting Psyber that you are happy to dish out insults to the worlds climate scientists but you complain when I call your failed attempt at climate science a monumental blunder.

Fielding was completely out of is depth and let's thank the Big Fella upstairs (sic) that the **** moron is gone.

Thread now back on track.