Public AMOS talk on climate change by Greg Holland

By 14 March, 2012 33

15 March, 2012
5:30 pm

Greg Holland and Cindy Bruyere from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, USA will be giving a public talk on Thursday 15th March 2012 at the CSIRO Discovery Centre at 5:30pm. Greg Holland has spent his career studying extreeme weather patterns and will be discussing:

  • the difficulties of differentiating climate change from variability
  • the question of when observable human-induced climate change commenced
  • the problems predicting extreeme weather events using climate models

CSIRO Discovery Centre – North Science road, off Clunies Ross st, Acton.

The talk is open to the public and people interested in this topic are encouraged to come along.

Please login to post your comments
33 Responses to Public AMOS talk on climate change by Greg Holland
#1
HenryBG6:12 pm, 14 Mar 12

Wow – we have a chance to hear some eminent US scientists give a public talk on their area of expertise – I will definitely be going.

#2
Diggety7:14 pm, 14 Mar 12

Apparently this dude really knows his sh*t.

The issues he’s discussing could help a lot of people wanting to discuss climate change.

#3
Mr Gillespie7:20 pm, 14 Mar 12

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

#4
dungfungus9:53 pm, 14 Mar 12

Will the tooth fairy be there as well?

#5
Jethro6:28 am, 15 Mar 12

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

#6
SnapperJack6:40 am, 15 Mar 12

The Climate Change conmen continue parroting their BS while the rain keeps pelting down …

#7
HenryBG7:28 am, 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

What a ridiculous comment.

#8
Tooks8:33 am, 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

From someone who gets all his research from the Alan Jones hour on 2CC.

#9
Lazy I9:31 am, 15 Mar 12

Is ‘extreeme’ more serious than ‘extreme’?

#10
Erg09:41 am, 15 Mar 12

Lazy I said :

Is ‘extreeme’ more serious than ‘extreme’?

I believe the extremeness is directly proportional to the number of “e”s.

#11
dungfungus11:36 am, 15 Mar 12

Jethro said :

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

I have been around a lot longer than these carpet-bagging “climate” scientists Jethro and I have not experienced any of the changes they claim are happening.
The spin they are now using is insulting the intelligence of people like me; for example:
- “global warming” (which isn’t happening) has now become “climate change” even though climate by definition is something that changes all the time
- the failure of devastating drought predications have now been blamed on “climate variability” which appears to be a new sub-category of “climate change”
- observable human-induced climate change commenced when impressionable dim-witted, Al Gore mesmerised governments, under instruction from the IPCC started bankrolling “climate” scientists. Then we have our own CSIRO claiming they are able to measure the composition of air 800,000 years ago? Give me a break!
- the problem predicting “extreme weather events” using “climate models” is a non-problem because (extreme) weather (events) will happen today, tomorrow, just as it has from the beginning of time.
- there is no evidence of permanent rising of sea levels due to anything (including “climate change”) yet subsidence of land masses on tectonic plates is an ongoing thing the same as silting up of the estuaries of rivers due to land degradation in catchments.
My “vast knowledge” is limited to facts only; that’s all that should matter for a world that has greater problems to deal with e.g., over population, aged care, etc.
Subsequently, I don’t have any capacity to absorb the tax-payer funded computer modelled spin masquerading as science.

#12
colourful sydney rac12:02 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

*throws rocks at the moon to make it go away*.

Of course you know better than scientists. Pfft, what would those eggheads know compared to someone who gets all their ‘facts’ from Alan Jones and Lord Monckton?

#13
HenryBG12:02 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

I have been around a lot longer than these carpet-bagging “climate” scientists Jethro and I have not experienced any of the changes they claim are happening.

That’s an argument from ignorance – one of the more glaringly stupid logical fallacies.

Luckily, people who know what they’re on about actually study the evidence, eg, former head of Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni:

“We will pay for this one way or another, [...] We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni

The facts are very simple: CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. This filters outgoing radiation, causing more heat to be retained. The Earth is heating up. Sea levels are rising. Glaciers and ice caps are disappearing. A good proportion of the Earth’s inhabitants rely on food produced at low altitudes, and a good proportion of that is threatened by sea level rise on coastlines and up river systems.
Starving people means wars and population migrations.

All because a few cranky idiots are scared of windmills.

If you deny any of that, you’re simply an idiot.

#14
dungfungus2:01 pm, 15 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

I have been around a lot longer than these carpet-bagging “climate” scientists Jethro and I have not experienced any of the changes they claim are happening.

That’s an argument from ignorance – one of the more glaringly stupid logical fallacies.

Luckily, people who know what they’re on about actually study the evidence, eg, former head of Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni:

“We will pay for this one way or another, [...] We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni

The facts are very simple: CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. This filters outgoing radiation, causing more heat to be retained. The Earth is heating up. Sea levels are rising. Glaciers and ice caps are disappearing. A good proportion of the Earth’s inhabitants rely on food produced at low altitudes, and a good proportion of that is threatened by sea level rise on coastlines and up river systems.
Starving people means wars and population migrations.

All because a few cranky idiots are scared of windmills.

If you deny any of that, you’re simply an idiot.

Your hero General Zinni would have contributed more than his share of atmospheric pollution during his distinguished military career and he continues to condone this by acting as CEO of one of the world’s biggest defense companies (they make missiles and bombs, chemical weapons etc.) He is not a “climate scientist” either so his opinion is no more valuable than your’s or mine.
Just because you are gullible about so called “climate science” this doesn’t give you the right to call me ignorant and an idiot either.

#15
johnboy2:05 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

Just because you are gullible about so called “climate science” this doesn’t give you the right to call me ignorant and an idiot either.

That’s conferred by your ignorance and idiocy.

#16
Jim Jones3:05 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

I have been around a lot longer than these carpet-bagging “climate” scientists Jethro and I have not experienced any of the changes they claim are happening.
The spin they are now using is insulting the intelligence of people like me; for example:
- “global warming” (which isn’t happening) has now become “climate change” even though climate by definition is something that changes all the time
- the failure of devastating drought predications have now been blamed on “climate variability” which appears to be a new sub-category of “climate change”
- observable human-induced climate change commenced when impressionable dim-witted, Al Gore mesmerised governments, under instruction from the IPCC started bankrolling “climate” scientists.

Then we have our own CSIRO claiming they are able to measure the composition of air 800,000 years ago? Give me a break!
- the problem predicting “extreme weather events” using “climate models” is a non-problem because (extreme) weather (events) will happen today, tomorrow, just as it has from the beginning of time.
- there is no evidence of permanent rising of sea levels due to anything (including “climate change”) yet subsidence of land masses on tectonic plates is an ongoing thing the same as silting up of the estuaries of rivers due to land degradation in catchments.
My “vast knowledge” is limited to facts only; that’s all that should matter for a world that has greater problems to deal with e.g., over population, aged care, etc.
Subsequently, I don’t have any capacity to absorb the tax-payer funded computer modelled spin masquerading as science.

This whole Copernican revolution thing is a gigantic fraud.

I’ve lived on the earth my whole life, and I can confidently state that the sun goes around the earth, not the other way around.

Anyone who says that the earth goes around the sun is part of a gigantic conspiracy to get government grant money or something.

#17
Mr Gillespie4:17 pm, 15 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Mr Gillespie said :

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

What a ridiculous comment.

Ridiculous or not, Australia can make no difference to carbon dioxide’s alleged role in climate change because no matter how you look at it, Australia’s contribution to the global “carbon footprint” is a mere ONE PERCENT. One percent reduced by 40% is still 0.4% which is still pointless. Even if Australia had ZERO “carbon emissions”, would only reduce the world’s CO? output by ONE PERCENT.

#18
pajs4:52 pm, 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

HenryBG said :

Mr Gillespie said :

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

What a ridiculous comment.

Ridiculous or not, Australia can make no difference to carbon dioxide’s alleged role in climate change because no matter how you look at it, Australia’s contribution to the global “carbon footprint” is a mere ONE PERCENT. One percent reduced by 40% is still 0.4% which is still pointless. Even if Australia had ZERO “carbon emissions”, would only reduce the world’s CO? output by ONE PERCENT.

At risk of site censure, I encourage you and dungfungus to provide more of your thoughts on, and evidence for, climate change denial (or quietism). I have a theory that other deniers, or wavering skeptics, could get a nice nudge in the direction of science and reason from these efforts.

#19
nobody5:22 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

Jethro said :

Maybe you should go along Dungfungus… you might learn something.

It is possible that a scientific expert might be able to add to your clearly vast knowledge on the subject.

I have been around a lot longer than these carpet-bagging “climate” scientists Jethro and I have not experienced any of the changes they claim are happening.
The spin they are now using is insulting the intelligence of people like me; for example:
- “global warming” (which isn’t happening) has now become “climate change” even though climate by definition is something that changes all the time
- the failure of devastating drought predications have now been blamed on “climate variability” which appears to be a new sub-category of “climate change”
- observable human-induced climate change commenced when impressionable dim-witted, Al Gore mesmerised governments, under instruction from the IPCC started bankrolling “climate” scientists.

Then we have our own CSIRO claiming they are able to measure the composition of air 800,000 years ago? Give me a break!
- the problem predicting “extreme weather events” using “climate models” is a non-problem because (extreme) weather (events) will happen today, tomorrow, just as it has from the beginning of time.
- there is no evidence of permanent rising of sea levels due to anything (including “climate change”) yet subsidence of land masses on tectonic plates is an ongoing thing the same as silting up of the estuaries of rivers due to land degradation in catchments.
My “vast knowledge” is limited to facts only; that’s all that should matter for a world that has greater problems to deal with e.g., over population, aged care, etc.
Subsequently, I don’t have any capacity to absorb the tax-payer funded computer modelled spin masquerading as science.

You have already experienced an average increase in temperature of 0.9 C since 1910, and of course the recent devastating 10 year drought. Yes the CSIRO can measure the air from 800,000 years ago trapped in Antarctic ice core sample, amazing isn’t it. Also, sea levels have risen 210mm since 1880, and have risen faster in the last 10 years than previously. Please check the recent report from the CSIRO, as your “facts” appear to from the 19th century.

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

#20
nobody6:02 pm, 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

HenryBG said :

Mr Gillespie said :

….so in the meantime, Juliar’s Carbon Tax is still going ahead regardless of whether or not the evidence presented by these atmospheric researchers can prove Australia can stop climate change.

What a ridiculous comment.

Ridiculous or not, Australia can make no difference to carbon dioxide’s alleged role in climate change because no matter how you look at it, Australia’s contribution to the global “carbon footprint” is a mere ONE PERCENT. One percent reduced by 40% is still 0.4% which is still pointless. Even if Australia had ZERO “carbon emissions”, would only reduce the world’s CO? output by ONE PERCENT.

And if every country reduced their CO2 emissions by 40%, then the world’s emissions would reduce by 40%. Get it! Every country does their bit towards this global issue, and many are including China and India, the EU and the USA, and even the Maldives are reducing their emissions by 100%.

http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments

#21
HenryBG6:36 pm, 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

Ridiculous or not, Australia can make no difference to carbon dioxide’s alleged role in climate change because no matter how you look at it, Australia’s contribution to the global “carbon footprint” is a mere ONE PERCENT. One percent reduced by 40% is still 0.4% which is still pointless. Even if Australia had ZERO “carbon emissions”, would only reduce the world’s CO? output by ONE PERCENT.

Similarly, I vote we cancel the garbage truck’s next Thursday morning run down Mr Gillespie’s street – after all, the garbage Mr Gillespie’s Street would have contributed is a mere 0.005PERCENT of the total garbage generated daily in Canberra – collecting it would reduce the amount of garbage in Canberra by 0.005% which would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, so it’s POINTLESS.

#22
HenryBG6:45 pm, 15 Mar 12

dungfungus said :

Your hero General Zinni would have contributed more than his share of atmospheric pollution during his distinguished military career and he continues to condone this by acting as CEO of one of the world’s biggest defense companies (they make missiles and bombs, chemical weapons etc.)

Exactly – he’s a bloke that’s had to plan and conduct military operations in the real world, using intelligence in the real world and had to manage risks to his operations in the real world using this intelligence.

so how is he part of the Global UN Greenie Commie Nazi Climate Change Fruad?

dungfungus said :

He is not a “climate scientist” either so his opinion is no more valuable than your’s or mine.

I beg to differ. You don’t rise up to become head of Central Command by being a cranky loon. His opinion is plenty valuable.

Of course, “climate scientists” (scare quotes? Are you scared of them?) all share that opinion anyway.

dungfungus said :

Just because you are gullible about so called “climate science” this doesn’t give you the right to call me ignorant and an idiot either.

I’d say the bloke caught parroting the ignorant idiot Alan Jones’ opinion is pretty much putting his hand up to that charge.

Your catalog of objections to the idea of climate change is ample demonstration of intellectual incoherence and outright denial. You’ve been egged-on by an industry lobby that’s trying to limit its exposure to having to take responsibility to what is currently an externalised cost. I can understand why they act as they do, because it is a legal obligation that company directors take all necessary legal steps to maximise shareholder value.
I don’t really understand the useful idiots like you who parrot their PR for free, though.

#23
Deckard8:00 pm, 15 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Ridiculous or not, Australia can make no difference to carbon dioxide’s alleged role in climate change because no matter how you look at it, Australia’s contribution to the global “carbon footprint” is a mere ONE PERCENT. One percent reduced by 40% is still 0.4% which is still pointless. Even if Australia had ZERO “carbon emissions”, would only reduce the world’s CO? output by ONE PERCENT.

Similarly, I vote we cancel the garbage truck’s next Thursday morning run down Mr Gillespie’s street – after all, the garbage Mr Gillespie’s Street would have contributed is a mere 0.005PERCENT of the total garbage generated daily in Canberra – collecting it would reduce the amount of garbage in Canberra by 0.005% which would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, so it’s POINTLESS.

Although, if we can get that same garbage man to tape Mr Gillespie’s mouth shut it will reduce 37.638% of the worlds methane emissions.

#24
gazket10:45 pm, 15 Mar 12

the climate change Nazis are in force here. they all probably sit in the audience of the Q&A as well.

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

you’re all a bunch of hypocrite fraudsters.

CSIRO are the biggest fraudsters in the country, they will say and do anything to get government grants from the Labour party and the Greens.

#25
Jethro11:08 pm, 15 Mar 12

gazket said :

the climate change Nazis are in force here. they all probably sit in the audience of the Q&A as well.

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

you’re all a bunch of hypocrite fraudsters.

CSIRO are the biggest fraudsters in the country, they will say and do anything to get government grants from the Labour party and the Greens.

gazket said :

the climate change Nazis are in force here. they all probably sit in the audience of the Q&A as well.

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

you’re all a bunch of hypocrite fraudsters.

CSIRO are the biggest fraudsters in the country, they will say and do anything to get government grants from the Labour party and the Greens.

Yes. People who accept the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change are exactly like Nazis.

Just this morning I went along my street and affixed blue and yellow stars to the lapels of all climate change deniers.

Also, I’m fairly sure the statements we apparently need to remember (‘it’s never going to rain again’) were never actually published in any scientific journals.

The scientists’ predictions were longer droughts punctuated by more severe floods.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

#26
HenryBG8:15 am, 16 Mar 12

gazket said :

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

Yes, I remember these – Alan Jones & Co. made them up, because nobody sensible ever said them, and nobody sensible could possibly believe that anybody sensible would ever have said them.

Here’s a nice graph which illustrates the difference between:
– how idiots like Alan Jones think
– how honest analysts think

Let us know which approach you prefer:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

#27
colourful sydney rac8:16 am, 16 Mar 12

Jethro said :

gazket said :

the climate change Nazis are in force here. they all probably sit in the audience of the Q&A as well.

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

you’re all a bunch of hypocrite fraudsters.

CSIRO are the biggest fraudsters in the country, they will say and do anything to get government grants from the Labour party and the Greens.

gazket said :

the climate change Nazis are in force here. they all probably sit in the audience of the Q&A as well.

Remember these statements bogans. It’s never going to rain again, all the dams will never fill up , the ground will be too dry to take any moisture.

you’re all a bunch of hypocrite fraudsters.

CSIRO are the biggest fraudsters in the country, they will say and do anything to get government grants from the Labour party and the Greens.

Yes. People who accept the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change are exactly like Nazis.

Just this morning I went along my street and affixed blue and yellow stars to the lapels of all climate change deniers.

Also, I’m fairly sure the statements we apparently need to remember (‘it’s never going to rain again’) were never actually published in any scientific journals.

The scientists’ predictions were longer droughts punctuated by more severe floods.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

+1

#28
davo1018:28 am, 16 Mar 12

I went to the talk and found it quite interesting. The key bits that I noted were:

1. He argued that the classic temperature graph that people keep showing of global temperatures from 1880 is misleading as it include a great deal of natural variability in the early part. Instead he uses the difference between the model runs with and without the anthropogenic drivers. The new graph is flat right up until about 1970 and then just starts taking off.

2. The occurrence of category 4 and 5 cyclones around the world has doubled in the last 40 years, but at the same time the total number of cyclones has not changed.

3. In some ocean basins there are now more category 4 and 5 cyclones than there are category 1 and 2. It would appear that the supply of possible cyclones is fixed but they are now being driven harder than they used to.

4. We should forget the mean and look at the extremes. He argued that despite the large noise in the extremes the signal is much larger and that climate change should be more evident here (and of more interest to the general public).

#29
Thumper8:33 am, 16 Mar 12

I don’t really want to get into this discussion but…

and even the Maldives are reducing their emissions by 100%.

Really? 100%?

#30
Diggety10:22 am, 16 Mar 12

@ davo101, thanks for the summary.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.