Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

What happenned 1000 years ago in a small section of the planet has nothing to do with the huge changes today all over the planet.

And we do not have to worry about scientists, it is very obvious to those of us who grew up on the land to see with our own eyes.

Have put up very many clear examples over time on this thread, but noco you choose to ignore them so could not be bothered anymore.

Well that is your opinion my friend ...What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with what happened to the planet...as what happened 500 years ago in the mini ice age which will happen again......As what happened in the dinosaur era...was it extreme temperatures...extreme cold?......was it drought or was it flood which was the result of climate change?...That never gets mentioned on this thread.

Those climate examples are based on supposition, manipulated modeling from peered reviewed "SCIENTIST" who are closely associated with the United Nations and who are using this scam to edge their way into World Government.

I too lived and worked on the land in south west Queensland in the late 1940's and early 1950's for 3 to 4 years when wool was one pound sterling for one pound of wool.....Were you on the land at that time?.....I experienced first hand, extreme heat, extreme cold, drought and floods...I was even marooned on Beechwood Station near Mehandarra for two weeks..I worked on sheep stations around Roma, St George, Goondawindi, Thallon and Dirranbandi....So please don't try to tell what it is like living on the land....I too have had first hand experience.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well that is your opinion my friend ...What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with what happened to the planet...as what happened 500 years ago in the mini ice age which will happen again......As what happened in the dinosaur era...was it extreme temperatures...extreme cold?......was it drought or was it flood which was the result of climate change?...That never gets mentioned on this thread.

Yes noco is right, there have been ice ages and periods hotter than today, but they have occured over long periods of time. The rate of warming today is the concern.

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.
Photograph of a section of an ice core, with bubbles.
Graph of temperature anomalies from the EPICA ice core, Antarctica.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
Graph of multi-proxy global temperature reconstruction and instrumental records.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

 

[explod]

Yes noco is right, there have been ice ages and periods hotter than today, but they have occured over long periods of time. The rate of warming today is the concern.

Agree, is why I have continually referred noco to "The Sixth Extinction" which very clearly spells out what you refer to as the varying speed of the time periods. Whats happening now is fast and accellerating.

 

[trainspotter]

Really Logique ? I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.

If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have fallen in the past 18 years and there has only been maximum of .4 C increase in global temperatures since 1880.

And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.

If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.

But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming. In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica ice.

But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication. I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.

The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
View attachment 66686 (From NASA website

This is in fact a few years old. Currently the world is running at 1.3C over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012. The last few years have been exceptionally warm.

Is this the same crowd that used sea temperature next to the inlet valve of the engine of the ships and somehow over a 100 year period measured every bit of data from the steam ships to the US Navy warships and deduced the sea temperature was gettting hotter as they all used the same thermometer?

 

[ghotib]

I don't see why someone needs formal scientific qualifications to look at that chart and conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is clearly not linear. To see what the chart says only requires a high school level of understanding, not a masters degree. Understanding the reasons requires a deeper understanding certainly but the chart itself seems pretty clear.

I didn't understand this chart last time I saw it, and I still don't. Logique, did you post it before? Where did you find it, and does the source explain:

1. Why a chart of annual CO2 averages has data points 22 months apart. Unless the X-axis labels are for temperature?? But if that's so, what's the interval for the CO2 data points, and...

2. What does "plot of 30-year global temperature change" mean? How does the 30-year global temperature change relate to the 22 month data points, if it does?

3. Why does the subtitle refer to "Large sustained warming prior to growth of human industrial/consumer CO2 emissions" when the chart starts in 1880?

I'll likewise say that you don't need a degree or other professional qualifications in finance to look at a chart of the ASX200 and conclude that it has gone up since the lows of early 2009 but has thus far never returned to the peak value seen in late 2007. I'm pretty sure that even those who have never invested in anything more complex than bank deposits and a superannuation fund could look at the chart and see that.

Back to the chart itself, what I do find interesting is the question of where the CO2 is actually going. Emissions have gone up massively compared to 40 years ago but the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration hasn't accelerated to anywhere near the same extent.

Into the oceans. Hence ocean acidification, sometimes known as 'global warming's evil twin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump (excuse a Wikiipedia citation - I'm out of time).

My concern there is that if we simply cut CO2 emissions by, say, 30% then that's not going to result in a 30% slower rate of increase in atmospheric concentration as it doesn't seem to be a linear relationship. That being so, to have any real impact we may need to cut far more drastically and even then the concentration keeps rising albeit more slowly.

Spot on!! The problem is that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so annual emissions are cumulative.

The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right.

I'm commenting on the assumption that it's not deliberately obfuscating

 

[noco]

Agree, is why I have continually referred noco to "The Sixth Extinction" which very clearly spells out what you refer to as the varying speed of the time periods. Whats happening now is fast and accellerating.

Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.

So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?

 

[cynic]

...


Spot on!! The problem is that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so annual emissions are cumulative.

...

Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?

Hence co2 levels may not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.

 

[cynic]

Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.

So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?

Their tribal elders sold an apocalyptic religion to the masses. A sizable minority of indoctrinated zealots took up the cause and passionately embarked on a crusade to wipe out all the heretics. The subsequent peace lasted only briefly as shortly thereafter division amongst the ranks of believers ensued giving rise to a further crusade for eradication of this new breed of heresy. This cycle continued and the rest is prehistory.

 

[explod]

Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.

So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?

What is happenning before our eyes is not theory, its happening. The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out.

Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin, 1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically, rock samples etc) of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.

 

[Smurf1976]

Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?

CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.

So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.

My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.

I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.

 

[luutzu]

Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?

Hence co2 levels may not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.

With the world's "lung" being eaten away daily through deforestation; with CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and hence reduces its oxygen level (among other things)... this circle of life doesn't spin so well anymore.

Was watching the Jimmy Dorres show where some American politician, on hearing some sceptic who said CO2 is not a big deal, tell the guy to go put a bag around his head to see if it's a big deal.

 

[Logique]

We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world should be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.

But it's still no reason to vote Greens.

Don't shoot the messenger Bas and SirR. And my apologies for trolling you today!

 

[Smurf1976]

We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world should be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.

There's data and charts showing no warming and there are others showing quite a big increase in temperature.

It seems rather obvious that at least some of this data is being measured in a manner intended to mislead and/or is simply false.

 

[SirRumpole]

CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.

So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.

My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.

I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.

The relationship is not linear and the natural process is that the ocean absorbs CO2 as previously mentioned which causes them to become more acidic and damaging to marine life.

Also there is a limit to the amount of co2 that oceans can absorb. When that limit is reached global warming will accelerate.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

 

[SirRumpole]

We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world should be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.

But it's still no reason to vote Greens.

Don't shoot the messenger Bas and SirR. And my apologies for trolling you today!

View attachment 66687

Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

 

[cynic]

CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.

So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.

My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.

I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.

Your thinking on this matter seems quite reasonable. That might simply be a consequence of the fact that I am largely agreeable with many of your points.

The absence of a linear relationship between increased co2 emissions and it's presence in the atmosphere might not be so mysterious as it initially seems. Could there, perhaps, be a minimum level of concentration required, before there is sufficient atmospheric conductivity to accomodate the natural recycling processes? Nature may have intially needed some time to adapt to sharp changes, thereby creating a hiatus in the recycling process.

As for recent climactic changes, I do believe it would be wise to accurately identify causation, before deciding whether or not a menacing situation actually exists. Armed with that information mankind might be better equipped to define the problem (if any) and subsequently determine an appropriate solution should one actually be required.

 

[Tisme]

I find myself wondering why the zeal to prosecute the case, but I am pleased to see other people have the same gut feel that I have. The worrying aspect for me is the absurdity of allowing political prostitutes to own the logical and moral sections of your own brain:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/

 

[cynic]

With the world's "lung" being eaten away daily through deforestation; with CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and hence reduces its oxygen level (among other things)... this circle of life doesn't spin so well anymore.

Was watching the Jimmy Dorres show where some American politician, on hearing some sceptic who said CO2 is not a big deal, tell the guy to go put a bag around his head to see if it's a big deal.

So that's where the head in the bag of CO2 came from!

Couldn't someone equally use this argument to make similarly menacing claims about H2O?

 

[SirRumpole]

I find myself wondering why the zeal to prosecute the case, but I am pleased to see other people have the same gut feel that I have. The worrying aspect for me is the absurdity of allowing political prostitutes to own the logical and moral sections of your own brain:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/

Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.

Pretty disgusting really.

 

[noco]

Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.

Pretty disgusting really.

But Shorten already said he would not reintroduce a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" under the government he leads.

So how is he going to get his 50% reduction target by 2030?

Ah yes an ETS of course which will jack up electricity prices by 78%.