This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Funny you should mention that, one of the better known Australian Gann enthusiasts has said that earthquakes (as well as wars and stock markets amongst other activities) follow "natural" - and therefore predictable, cycles. Whether I can find this having been claimed in print is another matter, but is was said in the presence of several people I know.
 
The tide actually does vary the crust height by a couple of centimetres according to National Geographic.

I worked in Jakarta and the whole place is sinking because of the large heavy buildings being built.

By the way, does anyone know why I always have a gap after my postings as if i typed a few carriage returns?
 
Well the oceans already slosh around a bit due to lunar pull, tides etc. Although regular, the loading and unloading would surely be far greater than that speculated by warmists?
The loading has to be sustained over a reasonable amount of time. Diurnal or even annual variations won't really have an effect as the phenomena of isostasy is caused by the pressure on the crust causing the underlying mantle to flow.

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Just a thought.
There are crackpots all over the place, one guy is claiming that sunspot activity can be used as a predictor of earthquakes.
 
I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.

Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.

What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.
 
That was a really interesting find on Post Glacial rebound Macca. Certainly opens ones mind to the range of forces acting on the earths surface.

However it is simply untrue to say scientists are unfairly adjusting sea level data. They just have to take many factors into account in what is a complex situation.

 

Hi Bas,

Found something on it, read post #1703 on this thread.
 

You have encapsulated the core argument against the catastrophic global warming believers.

They have a premise, and then rejig the data to fit in with that premise, when the data no longer suits them.

Popper would not be pleased.

gg
 
Macca, when I look at that Wikipedia page I see maps that show both rising and sinking land.

I read this about adjustments:

And this reference to global warming:

I'm bewildered that you could look at the same page and make the assessment you did. Why do you say that the "AGW team" (whoever they are) adjusts the level of the land, or that the adjustment is directly related to changes in sea level? What is dishonest about attempting to separate all the factors that affect sea level?

I was intrigued by the term "Vertical Datum". Turns out that vertical and horizontal datums (that's what the engineers call them) are critical to GPS systems as well as surveying and construction. This comes from a 1998 seminar http://geosun.sjsu.edu/paula/285/285/marc.htm:

Everything is always more interesting than it looks on the surface

Ghoti
 
This is where all this hysteria is leading, this is the first I have read about but how many more to come. They can't get the weather forecasts right 3 days in advance yet this council accepts the forecast of what will happen 90 years from now, utter cr**

<<A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.>>

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...perty-owner-drowning-in-opinions/2323421.aspx
 
It's really the "legal system" you need to blame for that one. Unfortunately we live in a society where people can and actually do sue for practically anything that happens to them.

If the council allowed building amidst widespread community knowledge that there were predictions of a rising sea level then the council would have little chance legally if sea levels did rise. Practically every industry has to think like that these days, at great detriment to the majority of people, and local government is no exception.

I know that my local council employs someone whose primary (only?) role is to walk the streets looking for anything that may give someone a chance to sue the council. Things like uneven footpaths that could be tripped over etc. That's because 30 years ago if someone fell over then they got up and walked on. These days they fake an injury and call their lawyer. Sad but true...
 
Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined to destroy the current scientific case against GW.

Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.


Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report

It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.
 
Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns

Writers for The Guardian are extremely skewed towards Global Warming, and should not be given much credibility. The same applies to the Pravda on the Yarra. Naturally these are your favourite rags.

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk,

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30
 

Pielke Snr comments:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

 

You'll find pretty much the same story in any newspaper that sees this as newsworthy Calliope. The Guardian is just repeating their Press releases.

Would you give them any more credance if they have another reference ?
 
Have the AGW extremists on this thread found the Observed evidence yet? I see Basilio is still gulping the propaganda with useless studies that can only suggest possibilities that may, could, perhaps, <legal disclaimer>, predict some far off calamity without any linkage to man's 3% contribution to total CO2.

Basilio, your continuous desperation in this thread can only mean you have an agenda or perhaps even a paid one?
 
No. Actually, I don't even read your long-winded discredited propaganda any more. It is too predictable.

Nice to know I'm not the only one...

And Japan and the EU are having second thoughts on pricing carbon (bold is mine0:

Read more from the Wall Street Journal by MARI IWATA:
Japan Reconsiders Plan to Cut Carbon Emissions

and on the EU (bold is mine):


Read more from the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Alessandro Torello, The Wall Street Journal:
Europe Reconsidering Its Unilateral Climate Policy

Thanks to Andrew Bolt's blog for providing the links...
 

I really don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously. The climate has been changing for millions of years and is going to keep changing, regardless of what we do.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...