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

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new

That was a clumsy statement of mine. I should have said he made some very significant, completely provable erroneous statements. The most important one was stating that volcanoes produce as much CO2 as humans. Therefore he was trying to suggest natural production of CO2 was as responsible for any CC (which he in any case denied using falsified graphs Ann!)

The reality ?
Volcanoes and CO2
Plimer has said that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit large amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is under-represented in climate models.[33][34][35] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[36][37][38] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[39] This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[40] A 2015 study from The Earth Institute at Columbia University published in Geophysical Research Letters says activity from undersea volcanoes varies with tide, with greater activity at neap tide, and with more activity in ice ages with their lower sea levels. Dr. Maya Tolstoy, who conducted the study, says this might explain abrupt ends to ice ages.[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
 
George Monbiot summed up the most important deceptions/errors/ whatever in Ian Plimers book in 2009. He offered to debate Ian Plimer as long as Ian provided written answers to a series of questions that the book raised. He did this to ensure that these questions were:

1) Recognised as representing Ian's argument but being without substance
2) Realising that in a debate it was highly unlikely that the queries would be actually answered.

Perhaps these might be the ones Ann and Redrob chose to review ?

Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight
Ian Plimer has agreed to answer written questions to defend his viewpoint that humans aren't warming up the world
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism
 
OK, couldn't hold my tongue anymore. Ian Pilmer is a Geologist right. He's trying to tell Astromers they are wrong about the Sun's orbit and influence on warmth. He's tried to tell Oceanographers they are wrong about Sea levels. He's tried to be an expert in others fields he's not qualified and drawn (relatively) uneducated assumptions on.

Sorta like the Roof Tiler trying to tell the Electricians, the Plumbers, the Carpenters, the etc etc thier jobs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)

Plus he is Director etc of a few Mining Companies
 

Plus 1. By the way the wikipedia analysis is excellent.
On the other hand I can totally understand why Ann has loved the book. It received rave reviews from the best CC deniers in the world. It was a real Trump moment in the CC debate. Someone comes out with total confidence and a complete pack of lies and misrepresentations and overruns the scientific work of the world climate research community.
 

Geology is about more than just looking at rocks.
An astronomer can make a hypothesis that current warming is unprecedented and caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
A geologist is more than qualified to say, actually no it's happened before, this is not unprecedented and here are some more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide.
 
Really?
So a geologist can tell that in the distant past there was in industrial revolution which led to fossil fuels accumulating in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate?
As for your claim about "more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide", would you care to elaborate.
 

Rederob, are you suggesting climate has never changed before. And that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the only possible driver of climate?

But since you asked..
More significant drivers of climate include, but are not limited to:
Milankovic cycles, the tilt and wobble of the earth, eccetricity of earths orbit - global temperatures vary depending how the Earth faces the sun and how close it is.
Continental drift - for example large areas of land situated at the poles are associated with ice ages, such as our current ice age.
Ocean currents - such as changes to the thermohaline ciculation caused by salinity changes from ice melt.
Variations in the sun intensity.

As for what's causing the modern warming. Well I'd assume that would be the opposite of whatever caused the cooling in the 1600's ("little ice age").. since it's been warming steadily since then.
The question is, since we are currently in an ice age, when will the current interglacial that we as a species have prospered in, end?

I'm not a Geologist, so I don't really know much about these things.
But I wouldn't dismiss a geologist as knowing nothing about climate.
 

I understand that a Geologist would have an understanding of these other fields but he's not a Specialist in them is he?
For this to all be a hoax almost everyone with any Earth Sciences degree would have to be hush you'd think.
The fact this Ian Plimer is the Director of a few mining companies geez! Imagine him and his mates worried about fossil fuel getting a bad reputation. Seems such a strong motive to build a deniers case.
 
Darc Knight said:
For this to all be a hoax almost everyone with any Earth Sciences degree would have to be hush you'd think.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political. Scientists can't do science without money.
Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.
Climate change is the "in" thing these days, so there's alot of incentive to study it (research grants $).
Any sensible scientist would get in on it. They might even find out something useful. Who wouldn't want to know more about our climate?
Just so happens that geologists can make a good living doing their science to help mining companies make lots of money. So they usually don't get too caught up in the whole climate change thing. Until climate change research/politics interferes with their ability to make money. i.e. mining is evil.
Then they may be motivated to write books etc to say this climate change thing is a bit blown out of proportion.
 

Thanks. I'm assuming you are trained in one of these areas. So you believe in human induced climate change, just maybe not as extreme as some?
 
First, in climate science there is a specific sense to "climate change". That is, it relates to a change in the statistical properties of the climate system that persists for several decades or longer which differentiate it from a previously long term pattern (typically of at least 30 years).
The fact that climate does change is considered trivial.
With respect to "more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide" we include only those factors which affect the planet's energy budget. These are principally the sun, greenhouse gases and aerosols.
Milankovitch cycles occur over periods of tens of thousands of years, so they are insignificant in human time scales. Your other points were not drivers of global climate change.
Your idea about why it is warming has no basis in science.
With regard to your question about our interglacial, I am not aware that an end date has been forecast. However, if you think that our planet is cooling now because we are in an "ice age" where is that evidence?
 
Darc Knight said:
Thanks. I'm assuming you are trained in one of these areas. So you believe in human induced climate change, just maybe not as extreme as some?
Click to expand...

Not really trained in anything, do have a Bachelor of Science (Ecology) for what it's worth.
Yeah, sure humans can influence the climate.
I just don't think the co2 contributes very much.
 
rederob said:
However, if you think that our planet is cooling now because we are in an "ice age" where is that evidence?
Click to expand...

The fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period within an ice age is evidence the Earth is warming, if anything.
I never said the earth is cooling. But it depends on time scale. If you look back 10-50 million years, then yeah, the Earth's temperature is generally in a steady decline.
If you look back 100 years, the earth is warming.
 
Struzball said:
The fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period within an ice age is evidence the Earth is warming, if anything.
Click to expand...
No, we have had significantly colder periods during the interglacial.
You say that you "just don't think the co2 contributes very much' but you are just guessing as you seem not to understand what actually drives climate.
I am not suggesting you don't know much about climate, but I am suggesting you do not know enough.
In a fashion climate is very easy because there are so few drivers of the system. However the dynamics of climate are exceptionally complex. The good news is that these dynamics are subservient to the rules of physics.
 
rederob said:
No, we have had significantly colder periods during the interglacial.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it was colder before, then it is warming. Not sure how we are not understanding each other here. The earth is warming. There is no question about it.

rederob said:
but you are just guessing as you seem not to understand what actually drives climate.
Click to expand...
I'm basing my "guess" on observations.
Which is the increase in co2, and the increase in temperature.
And I conclude the effect of co2 on temperature is, not much.
 
wayneL said:
No it isnt rederob
Repetition and falsification is.
Click to expand...
They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review. You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.
 
Struzball said:
I'm basing my "guess" on observations.
Which is the increase in co2, and the increase in temperature.
And I conclude the effect of co2 on temperature is, not much.
Click to expand...
As I said, you do not know enough about climate science, so go ahead and keep guessing if that's what makes you happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
304K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...