I always thought that. Dirty Egyptians. Maybe they should wash in the river.

That's a good question - if Egyptians washed in denial, would they still be revolting?

Edited by thupercoach: 5/7/2013 10:27:40 PM

You wanna go Bath in [size=1]de[/size]Nile. Be my guest. Happy to say you've got bigger balls than me.

Edited by Heineken: 6/7/2013 04:35:39 AM

Those balls wouldn't last long.

My beanbag has bigger balls than you buddy.

Even if you don't believe in climate change, surely the wiping out of beautiful rainforests and animal species is enough reason to significantly change our ways?

Australia warned to prepare for hotter summers – report

Last updated on 8 July 2013, 7:55 am
By Tim Radford

Global warming has increased five-fold the probabilities that Australians will bake in record hot summers, according to new research from the University of Melbourne.

And human activities – including greenhouse gas releases from fossil fuels – must account for at least half of these extreme summer temperatures of the future, the scientists say.

Sophie Lewis and David Karoly report in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, that they used climate observations and more than 90 climate model simulations to deliver their verdict, and to highlight the unexpected nature of the events of the first months of 2013, the hottest in the country’s observational record.

Australians are used to summer heat, drought and periodic bush fires as part of the continent’s natural cycle, and these are often linked to a Pacific Ocean temperature phenomenon known as El Niño, dubbed “the Child” in Peru because it tends to occur around Christmas time.


Australia’s Climate Commission warns that wine producing regions could be put out of business if temperatures continue to soar


But there was no El Niño: if anything, the ocean heat was turned down a little in a counter phenomenon called La Niña. So the extreme heat, catastrophic flooding and devastating bushfires early this year – the southern hemisphere summer – were certainly not expected.

“This extreme summer is not only remarkable for its record-breaking nature but also because it occurred at a time of a weak La Niña to neutral conditions, which generally produce cooler summers”, said David Karoly. “Importantly our research shows the natural variability of El Niño-Southern Oscillation is unlikely to explain the recent record temperatures.”

Sophie Lewis, who is also at the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, warned that such extreme summers will become even more frequent and more severe in the future, as the planet warms further.

Adaptation

Between December 2012 and February 2013, Australians experienced the hottest month in the nation’s recorded history, and the hottest day. There were fierce and destructive bush fires in Tasmania and Victoria, and severe flooding in New South Wales and Queensland. The Australian media dubbed it “the angry summer”.

“We cannot categorically ascribe the cause of a particular climate event to anthropogenic climate change; however, the roles of various factors contributing to the change in odds of an event occurring can be identified”, the two scientists write.

They examined the historical record of more than 150 years of observation, and found, repeatedly, that extreme summers tended to occur in step with El Niño years: in fact were three times more likely to happen in an El Niño year than a La Niña season.

Clearly, something else was at work in the summer of 2013. Natural climatic variations were not likely to have caused the bush fires and the floods.

It was possible to say, with more than 90% confidence, that human influences on the Australian atmosphere had dramatically increased the odds of extreme temperatures.

By the end of the century, other studies have shown, 65% of all summers are likely to be “extremely hot”.

There was also research that suggested longer summers – that is, shorter springs and autumns – might be expected as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. In those parts of Australia that were both heavily populated, and at risk of bush fire, humans would have to adapt.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network.

AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE COMMISSION FACTS:

- Heat: The number of record hot days in Australia has doubled since the 1960s. The summer of 2012/2013 summer set over 100 heat records, including the hottest summer, hottest month, and hottest day on record.

- Bushfire weather: Extreme fire weather has increased in many parts of Australia, including southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia, over the last 30 years.

- Rainfall: Heavy rainfall has increased globally. Over the last three years Australia’s east coast has experienced several very heavy rainfall events, fuelled by record-high surface water temperatures in the adjacent seas.

- Drought: A long-term drying trend is affecting the southwest corner of Western Australia, which has experienced a 15% drop in rainfall since the mid-1970s.

- Sea-level rise: Sea level has already risen 20cm globally. This means that storm surges ride on sea levels that are higher than they were a century ago, increasing the risk of flooding along Australia’s socially, economically and environmentally important coastlines. For instance, since 1950 Fremantle has experienced a three-fold increase in inundation events.

- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/australia-warned-to-prepare-for-hotter-summers-report/?#sthash.jUKbCngZ.dpuf

Feeling pretty cold atm. And the dams are full. And China just had its coldest winter in decades. And the Earth has cooled in the past 20 years.

But I'm sure Tim Flannery is right.

America is sweltering through it's hottest summer of all time. But yeah, global averages mean we should ignore this.

Not at all. I think we should pour billions into carbon credits and taxes. That'll fix it for sure.

I've seen you say that the Earth has cooled in the past 20 years. I'm interested to see references to that statement.

According to NASA the previous decade was the warmest on record
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

There are some republicans who would like to sign you up to their party champ.

Why is it that righties are, on average, inept when it comes to science?
Rhetorical question........

Edited by ozboy: 9/7/2013 06:45:59 PM

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/russian-scientists-predict-100-years-cooling/

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm

I'm more convinced than ever. But the UN gravy train thinks otherwise.

Forbes? FORBES? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Shouldn't Forbes stick to justifying derivatives and the sub-prime mortgage system?

As for the rest, I bet they are blogs. Do they have a theory behind Nasa's faked moon landings and the real killer of JFK? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow, you make some compelling arguments.

Well, the warmest years on record, according to NASA, are 2010, 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2012, 2011, 2004, 2008, 2001.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html


AR5's first report/chapter is due at the end of this year with the full report a year later.

Attn Thupercoach: a blog is not now, nor will it ever be, a reliable source of information.

Believe whatever you like mate. When an article quotes accurate sources that's good enough for me. Perhaps not for you. I'm OK with people who want to believe in stuff like man-made global warming. Heck, some even do believe in the faked moon landing theory.

Comparing something with scientific evidence to the faked moon landing only serves to reiterate how delusional you are.

A blog is an editorial piece. An article written with the intent of first having a conclusion and then bringing your ideas around to suit it with emotive language and selective use of evidence. It is NOT a valid source to prove anything except your own gullibility.

When a blog uses actual facts and statistics to prove its editorial position then it becomes a compelling, fact-based argument in my book.

As I said, believe what you like. I am here to converse rather than convert.

When it's a blog piece it can select the facts as it wants to. It's not reporting actual scientific findings. It starts with a conclusion and then builds a contention, not the other way around.

Great Barrier Reef's condition declined from moderate to poor in 2011

Series of reports blames extreme weather conditions and high rainfall for reef's poor health

Oliver Laughland
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 July 2013 18.02 AEST

An alarming set of reports on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef published on Wednesday say its overall condition in 2011 declined from moderate to poor, and highlights that reef-wide coral cover has declined by 50% since 1985.

The series of reports blame part of the reef's poor health in 2011 on extreme weather conditions including tropical cyclone Yasi, and high rainfall which resulted in "higher than average discharge" from a number of river catchments runoffs.

The Great Barrier Reef report card of 2011 said: "These extreme weather events significantly impacted the overall condition of the marine environment which declined from moderate to poor overall in 2010–2011."

The report card also examines the water quality of the region, and showed that the majority of land managers within the Great Barrier Reef region had failed to reach their reef plan targets, aimed at reducing sediment and pesticide loads which are harmful to water quality.

"Thirty four per cent of sugarcane growers, 17% of graziers and 25% of horticulture producers adopted improved management practices by June 2011," the report said.

These reef plan targets are described as "ambitious" and include targets to halve nutrient and pesticide loads by 2013 and to reduce sediment by 20% by 2020. Despite this, the report observes "major positive change" in land management within the region.

The 2013 scientific consensus statement, released at the same time as the report card, concluded that coral cover of inshore reefs had declined by 34% since 2005.

The new environment minister Mark Butler said: "In spite of solid improvement, data tells us that poor water quality is continuing to have a detrimental effect on reef health.

"To secure the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef it is critical that we build on the momentum of the previous reef plan with a focus on improving water quality and land management practices through ambitious but achievable targets."

The federal and Queensland state environment ministers announced that they would invest a total of $375 million between 2013 and 2018 under a new Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, designed "to guide initiatives to ensure that runoff from agriculture has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef".

The Queensland minister for environment, Andrew Powell, praised those landholders in the region who were improving their practise. "We are working closely with industry, landholders, natural resource management bodies and community groups to accelerate the uptake of practices that maximise reef water quality while maintaining and enhancing profitability and environmental performance," he said.

But Greenpeace spokeswoman Georgina Woods was critical of the bi-annual meeting between the two ministers. She said neither minister had engaged with the key issue of coal export and mining within the region, particularly at a controversial new dredging proposal at the Abbot Point coal terminal.

"One day after the new environment and climate change minister deferred a crucial decision on the future of Abbot Point, the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum has failed to tackle the problems that every Australian knows are eating away at the Great Barrier Reef: global warming and ocean acidification. Hopefully, today's missed opportunity is just a dress rehearsal for the main event in August, when the new minister will be called upon to choose between safeguarding the Great Barrier Reef and letting the coal industry dredge, dump and develop Abbot Point.

"It is pretty clear that the Queensland government is not going to stand up to the coal industry and protect the reef in the interests of the broader community and future generations. Mark Butler now has 30 days to make a decision about Abbot Point. To safeguard the Reef and fulfill his climate change brief, he has no choice: he must say 'no' to the coal industry," Woods added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/great-barrier-reef-report-card?

CLIMATE CHANGE
Why Is Google Raising Cash for the Nation's Biggest Climate Change Denier?

By Brian Merchant



GIF by Daniel Stuckey

James Inhofe is Oklahoma's senior senator. He's also perhaps the most prominent foe of climate change science currently serving in the US government. There are myriad congressmen who dispute the scientific consensus that the globe is warming—and who routinely vote against any action that would address it. But Inhofe is in a league of his own. So why is Google, a major investor in clean energy and purported doer of no evil, throwing this man a fundraiser?

The tech giant is hosting a $250-2,500 per plate lunch for the senator on Thursday, July 19th, and climate activists are crying foul. This is politics in action.

Google has data centers in Oklahoma, so the company has business interests in the state. But the climate advocacy group Forecast the Facts (FTF) quickly started a petition exhorting Google to "Cancel your July 11 fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe and pledge to never fund climate deniers again."

As of this writing, it had obtained nearly 6,000 e-signatures. At 10,000, it will be delivered to Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt. FTF notes in the petition that Schmidt has previously taken on climate change deniers—those who circulate anti-scientific ideas and mistruths about global warming—and pointed to Google, and the internet in general, as a way to combat misinformation about global warming.

In a short speech at the "How Green is the Internet?" summit, Schmidt said that the primary reason action on climate change has proved elusive is "the fact problem." People don't have enough access to real facts about climate science, he argued, but the internet will eventually deliver that access, and expose those spreading falsehoods in the process.

"The media gets confused because they don't believe in facts, and public policy people get confused because they don't believe in innovation," he said in the same speech, according to the Verge. "You can hold back knowledge, you cannot prevent it from spreading. You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you'll be seen as a liar."

Inhofe is precisely the kind of man he's talking about. The senator not only doubts that temperatures are rising, but believes the notion to be the product of an intricate conspiracy that stretches from grant-hungry scientists to (surprise) Al Gore to shadowy luminati-type characters he imagines pulling the strings at the UN. This is not an exaggeration, and Inhofe wouldn't flinch from such a portraiture—he'd proudly embrace it. His ideas are all laid bare in his 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.



Inhofe talks to Oklahoma Horizon TV about climate change.

Requests for comment from Inhofe's DC office were not immediately returned, but a spokesperson for Google said the focus was Google's Oklahoma interests, not the climate.

"We regularly host fundraisers for candidates, on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't mean we endorse all of their positions," wrote the spokesperson. "And while we disagree on climate change policy, we share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma."

Google is currently in the process of expanding its data center in that state. According to a 2012 Data Center Knowledge report, the search giant has invested $700 million to double server capacity at the Oklahoma facility, and added 50 jobs in the process. It also gets some of its power from a nearby wind farm.

But Brad Johnson, the campaign manager for Forecast the Facts, says fundraising for Inhofe is inexcusable.

"With its support of the likes of Inhofe and CEI, Google is funding climate denial," he wrote me in an email. "Why Google is betraying its claimed ethical standards and the interests of its customers and shareholders by funding anti-science conspiracy theorists is unclear."

The CEI is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a renowned conservative think tank that pushes for lower taxes and "free market" reforms. It also routinely propagates doubt about climate change science, despite lacking the scientific authority to do so. Johnson notes that the Washington Post recently revealed "that Google was the biggest single donor to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner on Thursday, June 20, dropping $50,000 in support of this anti-science group."

As Google's already mammoth ambitions continue to expand, and the company gets more heavily involved in politics, such contradictions will likely continue to arise. It has invested millions in wind power and offshore grid projects, and promptly responded to criticisms that it drew too much dirty power from its data centers by buying more renewable energy. A lot more. But Inhofe is one of the biggest impediments to meaningful climate policy in Congress—he played a central role in killing legislation that would reduce carbon pollution.

As such, this fundraiser is illustrative: Google's executives can sincerely believe that their products will eventually help to end the climate problem, by eroding the credibility of climate liars. But by fundraising for Inhofe, they are are simultaneously helping to validate and sustain his anti-science platform. Doing no evil continues to be a thorny business.



Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-is-google-raising-cash-for-the-nations-biggest-climate-change-denier-1#ixzz2YdSNM2pD
Follow us: @motherboard on Twitter | motherboardtv on Facebook

Air pollution boosts lung, heart risks

Long-term exposure to particulate air pollution boosts the risk of lung cancer, even at concentrations below the legal maximum, according to a European study.

A separate report says short-term surge in these particles or other gas pollutants in the air also increases the risk of heart failure.

European epidemiologists say they had found an unmistakeable link between lung cancer and localised air pollution by particulate matter.

The evidence comes from 17 high-quality investigations carried out among 312,000 people in nine European countries, according to the paper in The Lancet Oncology.

These earlier studies, which had already been published, were based on reliable records of the health and lifestyle of 2095 people who died from lung cancer during an average 13-year monitoring period.

The team sourced environmental data around the individuals' home addresses, then calculated their exposure to levels of particulate matter -- the gritty residual pollution from fossil-fuel-burning power stations, cars and factories.

Particulate matter falls into two categories: PM2.5, meaning particles measuring no more than 2.5 micrometres, 30 times smaller than a human hair, and the slightly coarser variant, PM10.

Current EU air quality standards limit PM10 exposure to a yearly average of 40 micrograms per cubic metre, and PM2.5 exposure to 25 micrograms per cubic metre per year.

The UN's World Health Organisation (WHO) has guidelines recommending that annual exposure be limited to 20 micrograms per cubic metre for PM10 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5

Unexpectedly, the new study found a cancer risk at every level, and confirmed that the higher the level, the greater the risk.


'No threshold'
The results took account of smoking, diet and occupation -- which can skew the risk picture.

"We found no threshold below which there was no risk," says Ole Raaschou-Nielsen from the Danish Cancer Society Research Centre in Copenhagen.

"The more the worse, the less the better."

Every increase of five micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5 drove the risk of lung cancer up by 18 per cent.

And every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of PM10 boosted risk by 22 per cent, including for adenocarcinoma, a type of lung cancer associated with non-smokers.

In an independent comment, Jon Ayres, a professor of environmental and respiratory medicine at the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in Birmingham, England, praised the design and scope of the study.

"There is now no doubt that fine particles are a cause of lung cancer," he says.

Smog alert
In a separate study in The Lancet, scientists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland carried out a meta-analysis of 35 studies in 12 countries.

It looked at PM2.5, PM10 and four air pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone.

They found that even a brief spike in exposure -- the kind that happens when a city calls a smog alert -- caused the risk of hospitalisation or death from heart failure to rise by two or three percentage points. The only exception was ozone, a well-known respiratory irritant at the ground level.

Modelling the situation for the United States, the study suggests that if the average PM2.5 were reduced by 3.9 micrograms per cubic metre, nearly 8000 heart-failure hospitalisations would be averted each year and the country would save a third of a billion dollars annually.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/10/3800159.htm

The concern in Australia is the massive increase in diesel cars.
The World Health Organisation has already shown that diesel causes cancer.

In addition to anthropogenic climate change, its another detrimental side effect of current vehicle fuels.

Bit of a catch 22 there. Diesel is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than petroleum but far more carcinogenic.

In 10 years time half of China are going to go full Futurama sewer mutant.

Edited by afromanGT: 11/7/2013 12:27:58 PM

Air pollution 'kills more than 2 million people every year'

Climate change only partly to blame, say scientists, as sooty particles and ozone account for most deaths

guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013 20.14 AEST

More than 2 million deaths occur globally each year as a direct result of air pollution from human activity, a team of international scientists has said.

But climate change has only made a small contribution to the lethal effects, according to the study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

It suggests that 2.1 million people die after inhaling fine sooty particles called PM2.5s generated by diesel engines, power plants and coal fires.

Another 470,000 are thought to be killed by high levels of ozone, created when vehicle exhaust gases react with oxygen.

Dr Jason West from the University of North Carolina said: "Our estimates make outdoor air pollution among the most important environmental risk factors for health.

"Many of these deaths are estimated to occur in east Asia and south Asia, where population is high and air pollution is severe."

Climate change since 1850 has only led to 1,500 extra deaths from ozone and 2,200 from PM2.5 particulates, according to the research.

The scientists used climate computer models to simulate concentrations of ozone and PM2.5s in the years 2000 and 1850. Epidemiological studies were then used to assess how the levels related to worldwide death rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/12/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change?

The above article clearly illustrates that it is far more important to focus cleaning up air pollution which has a clear, quantifiable effect over wasting billions on something that may, at worst, heat the planet by the tiniest of percentages in a few hundred years.