Resisting Climate Hysteria

[pixel]

The change might be natural or it might be man-made but it's extremely obvious on this island that there is a change occurring.

Smurf, Don't concede so easily that the nay sayers might have a point when they recite their "not man-made" mantra. They're wrong!

For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, vested interests of the coal, gas, and oil industry use all kinds of red herrings, lies, and false reasoning to deny the obvious. And it's easy to be seen how the less scientifically educated members of the public and Parliaments fall prey to misinformation and propaganda.

There is big money to be made. Who cares that it's killing the Planet.

 

[cynic]

Smurf, Don't concede so easily that the nay sayers might have a point when they recite their "not man-made" mantra. They're wrong!

For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, vested interests of the coal, gas, and oil industry use all kinds of red herrings, lies, and false reasoning to deny the obvious. And it's easy to be seen how the less scientifically educated members of the public and Parliaments fall prey to misinformation and propaganda.

There is big money to be made. Who cares that it's killing the Planet.

Thermodynamics of heat dissipation alone, can be difficult to quantify within a closed system, let alone on an entire planet moving through outer space!

The only "no brainers" in this argument, are those with over-inflated views on their grasp of the complexity of nature, its evolution and response to change!

 

[basilio]

For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Sorry Pixel but I don't think the physics of combustion will let you say that the energy released from fossil fuel use is hanging around and causing the earth to warm.

The earth is warming because the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is trapping more heat from the sun. That's the issue in a nutshell. So if for example you could combust something and not produce CO2 - no global warming. That is the argument behind using hydrogen as a fuel because it produces no CO2 on combustion. On a similar note methane produces less CO2 than other hydrocarbons which is the argument for natural gas over other carbon fuels.

Of course burning fossil fuels leaves a little residual heat. However the overwhelming heat source of the earth is the Sun every day and our problem with extra GG is that we are trapping more and more of this energy in the atmosphere which then enters the oceans and land.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...e-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx

 

[sptrawler]

Thermodynamics of heat dissipation alone, can be difficult to quantify within a closed system, let alone on an entire planet moving through outer space!

The only "no brainers" in this argument, are those with over-inflated views on their grasp of the complexity of nature, its evolution and response to change!

At last a sensible answer, to the climate change hysteria.

If fossil fuels weren't burnt over the last 100 years, would it have made a difference?

If it would have made a difference, why has climate change happened through the centuries before fossil fuel burning, as is proven in ice core samples?

 

[noco]

I have asked the alarmist on a few occasions as to how much CO2 is released from bush fires in Australia in comparison to the burning of fossil fuel for power stations and to date I have not been able to get an answer so they either do not want us to know or they have no idea.

Now bearing in mind our modern power stations do capture CO2 and they release nothing more than a steam vapor but not so with bush fires.

So I did some research and the information as per the attached link will surprise you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-fires-carbon-idUSTRE51P12120090226

 

[Knobby22]

If it would have made a difference, why has climate change happened through the centuries before fossil fuel burning, as is proven in ice core samples?

You know the answer ~ orher factors. You can look them up. Why is it happening now and with such rapidity? You know the answer.

 

[wayneL]

You know the answer ~ orher factors. You can look them up. Why is it happening now and with such rapidity? You know the answer.

You forgot to say amen.

 

[qldfrog]

Now bearing in mind our modern power stations do capture CO2 and they release nothing more than a steam vapor but not so with bush fires.

where did you get that?
I am not aware of a single power station in Australia capturing C02.
Worldwide, less than a dozen out of tens of of thousands do it.
Please prove me wrong!

But i would not dismiss the idea of increase temperature on earth due to human (burning aka released energy) activities:
I agree with Pixel there
----
For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Sorry Pixel but I don't think the physics of combustion will let you say that the energy released from fossil fuel use is hanging around and causing the earth to warm.
---
sorry Basilio, no one wants to hear/care that but i have already produced a basic computation on this forum which indicates around 2C increase from stable system due to human activity so far (aka 3/4y ago when i computed the numbers;
that has not much to do with CO2, but the fact that most of human activities end up as heat;
in a closed system that the earth is once a balance is reached (solar energy/geothermal energy in, loss in space out), the equilibrium can easily be changed by a minute but constant heat emission;

Sadly no one wants to hear that: the oil/coal and now nuclear lobby and people like Noco as this means human has to take responsability; nor the green movement as the only way to reduce the warming is to use less and only the wind/solar energy (aka using already here energy), it also means less people on earth a green basic principle, but not a green party one(see attitude vs immigration) ;

Noco, I am really intrigued by your attitude: I live in Qld as you do, out of the big city; in the last 20y the actual physical changes in the climate are in your face everyday:
every farmer, logger, fisherman or huntereople living near to nature can see it and is convinced of a global warming
The swallows being here nearly all year round and not migrating north anymore, the nesting season, when your harvest is ready, the shortened growth period for your winter vegies etc etc
Not one example, hundreds..
Usually city people are the one who do not care/can not actually see it and deny it, after you can blame red martians or whatever but the changes are here.How can someone living out of a city not see it;

my basic computation on GW due to human activities is here if anyone wants to actually care instead of going into this ping pong of not real/real

Smurf, when you have time, would you consider doing your own computation there if interested?

 

[orr]

The Barrier Reef earns how much for the Qld economy? Employs how many people directly and indirectly?

The forward bookings from this point on will only be coming from that small percentage of ghouls who like to tour disaster zones... .
Because the Courier Mail has done its best to ignore to the unfolding environmental catastrophe, this will not stop the down steam consequences. These will be empirically measured in its effect on business.... Cairns real estate anyone? DYOR...

But you hope things don't unfold that way... hope.

And when hopes gone...There'll always be for future generations the archived film of what was.

 

[wayneL]

The rare occasion bas is spot on re closed and open systems.

Curious he could be so right on one point, and so wrong on the other

 

[basilio]

Well that's intriguing Qldfrog. I can't make an informed comment on your calculations about the warming of the earth by human activity rather than the trapping of extra GG.

I am going to flick it around to more accomplished mathematicians/scientists to see what they think of it. Frankly I would be very surprised if this line of thinking hadn't been explored.

Nice work.

 

[Knobby22]

You forgot to say amen.

You answer it then. I haven't.
You won't though.


(you don't won't to challenge your religious beliefs by thinking about facts, It's Galileo all over again)

 

[basilio]

The first three months of 2016 has seen soaring world wide temperatures. How has this affected the Greenland ice cap?

Alert! Greenland's Ice Now Melting At Catastrophic Speed
By Leah NY
Apr 16, 2016 04:57 AM EDT


Greenland ice melted on Monday at such a catastrophic speed that scientists could hardly believe it. It was such an the "extreme melt event" that experts had to check if they were making a mistake.

"We had to check that our models were still working properly. Such a melt is normal for late May, but not mid-April. Something like this wipes out all kinds of records," said Peter Langen, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. "This could be a sign of things we're going to see more often in the future."

Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) discovered that there was at least one millimeter thick and 1.7 million square kilometers wide melted ice on top of Greenland's ice sheet. This makes up around 12 percent of the whole ice sheet, double the rate of melting the day before which was only at 4 percent, according to Inquisitr.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...nlands-ice-now-melting-catastrophic-speed.htm

 

[qldfrog]

Well that's intriguing Qldfrog. I can't make an informed comment on your calculations about the warming of the earth by human activity rather than the trapping of extra GG.

I am going to flick it around to more accomplished mathematicians/scientists to see what they think of it. Frankly I would be very surprised if this line of thinking hadn't been explored.

Nice work.

The trouble is that it is easy to check the effect of C02 as an isolation layer, far less to compute a model which is earth sized with a lot of unknowns,
I just based the computation on the assumption the earth had reached a balance (i believe it is globally true) and that in a balanced system even a small and constant push does end up with significant effects.
I understand that with higher average temperature, you have more losses but space is vacuum so losses are not like a hot dish cooling in the kitchen, only Infra red radiations would actually escape the system.
Anyone can freely prove me wrong, very open as my scenario is even worse than the usual option
This is not my field of expertise but I have based a whole career so far on taking a step back and building systems/solution that none of the conventional scientists had ever thought about;
you would be surprised at the academic world basilio.
I am an engineer in the noble form of the term not a scientisty, I find solution using sciences.
And it could be that these computations have been done and the results identical, but not released;
Why release a conclusion of doom?
targetting CO2 reduction is not a bad thing in itself, favor wind/solar/hydro anyway which is good in this scenario so could be a nice first approach, I just know i do not care about my cattle emission of methane nor using wood fire (recycled energy) but am using solar as much as possible (HW and PV)

 

[noco]

The first three months of 2016 has seen soaring world wide temperatures. How has this affected the Greenland ice cap?



http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...nlands-ice-now-melting-catastrophic-speed.htm

Once again the ALARMIST have pressed the panic button to consolidate there claim to man made Global Warming.

Look at this...you must believe us. .....Look what is happening in Greenland.....The ice is melting at an alarming rate.....We must stop this coal fired power stations from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere....This what is causing the melt down in Greenland......It is going to flood the world if we don't stop it now.

Absolute utter rubbish.

I posted a similar link on Greenland some years ago when the ice melted 1000 years ago and allowed the grazing of sheep, goats and cattle.....They grew wheat rice and barley......then there was a mini ice age 500 years ago which halted farming.

History has repeated itself of one natural phenomenal which has occurred many times over thousands of years.

For gawd sake stop this gloom and doom madness.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it Grænland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.

 

[luutzu]

Once again the ALARMIST have pressed the panic button to consolidate there claim to man made Global Warming.

Look at this...you must believe us. .....Look what is happening in Greenland.....The ice is melting at an alarming rate.....We must stop this coal fired power stations from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere....This what is causing the melt down in Greenland......It is going to flood the world if we don't stop it now.

Absolute utter rubbish.

I posted a similar link on Greenland some years ago when the ice melted 1000 years ago and allowed the grazing of sheep, goats and cattle.....They grew wheat rice and barley......then there was a mini ice age 500 years ago which halted farming.

History has repeated itself of one natural phenomenal which has occurred many times over thousands of years.

For gawd sake stop this gloom and doom madness.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it Grænland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.

What happened to those Greenlanders when Greenland turn icy and froze all over?

Rising sea level will literally salt the deltas of the world. Deltas are where most farmland and food production are located.

I'm not a horticulturalist or know the land, but I'd imagined the new water level won't just turn desert or higher land into fertile soil overnight or over a few years right?

how will the world be fed in the meanwhile?

If the ocean gets warmer, it might kill a few of those tiny planktons and algae at the bottom of the food chain. If they die off enough, less small fish to feed the bigger ones to feed the human ones.

Man, it's not like 50 or 50% of actual scientists are saying global warming is a real and serious threat to survival, it's somehwere in the high 90s. When that many people who tell us it's going to be a cluster bloom, and that bloom could kill hundreds of millions (mostly poor) people living in the deltas on farming or fisheries... then the record level drought, storms, hurricane, diseases...

meehhh... come back and let us know when all scientists agreed. Even the bought off ones.

 

[noco]

where did you get that?
I am not aware of a single power station in Australia capturing C02.
Worldwide, less than a dozen out of tens of of thousands do it.
Please prove me wrong!

Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.

 

[basilio]

What does a xucked coral reef look like ? The scientists who have spent their lives researching these gorgeous eco systems want to make sure we can't simply ignore this devestation.

Mourning Loomis Reef - the heart of the Great Barrier Reef's coral bleaching disaster
Graham Readfearn

Corals on Loomis Reef are dying as one veteran scientist lets the “veil” of academia drop to reveal anger and frustration

Thursday 21 April 2016 15.53 AEST

Stretching for half a kilometre or so, Loomis Reef is the place where the alarm bells started going off.

Prof Justin Marshall has been diving this reef, about 270km north of Cairns, for 30 years. Right now he is, to say the least, angry.

“My veil is down,” he says, no longer bothering with the kind of polite niceties common among academics.

“I have cried. I have broken down in front of cameras. This is the most devastating, gut-wrenching **** up,” says Marshall, of the University of Queensland.

Clown fish in a bleached sea anemone at Lizard Island, Great Barrier reef.

[video]https://youtu.be/TB9I6UUoo_4[/video]

 

[basilio]

Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.

Link between fossil fuels and Great Barrier Reef bleaching clear and incontrovertible
Graham Readfearn

Data shows bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef coincides with record warm ocean temperatures in the region

Contact author
@readfearn

Wednesday 30 March 2016 12.28 AEDT

Where only a few weeks ago there were swathes of vivid purples, blues and pretty much any other colour you fancy, now there is just grey and white.

Corals in the northern section of Australia’s vast Great Barrier Reef – a length of more than 1000km or so – have become the latest and most famous victims of the third global “mass bleaching” of corals since 1998.

Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology

Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.

The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists

 

[explod]

Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.

Get real , Google is part of the industrial world and thier info is designed for deniers and to keep the science as confused as possible.

Clear plain unobtrusive observations of what is going on, if we are capable of looking and thinking for ourselves, outside of political sway, shows we have a shocking deterioration of the global envioronment and its clearly caused by the burning of coal and oil. Ie, cars and power stations.

And the shame is, we can do it all at no more overall cost with clean alternatives.