Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[moXJO]

Maybe the pink batt scheme, as poorly implemented as it was, was designed to do just that, insulate us against the increasing severe heatwaves.

Poorly is the right word. A lot of it wouldn't be providing much of a rating today. I still get to see a lot of this stuff weekly and its cheap imported rubbish stuffed into ceilings.

 

[noco]

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?



Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.



Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.



I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet

tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat,

vacationing at home instead of abroad. Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.



The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.



I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.



Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.



Just remember that your government just tried to

impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.



Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention

'Global Warming' anymore, but just'Climate Change'- you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.



And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an

Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.



But, hey, relax...... and have a nice day :>)"

And the Green/Labor left wing socialist want to bring a Carbon Tax which will add another impost on the cost of living. OMG.

 

[pixel]

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!

Every once in a while, a university - even one of the "World's Best", so they claim - gets it wrong and awards someone a professorship, who, after closer scrutiny and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe should have failed a few steps on the way.

Every once in a while, a lecturer with some grounding in one subject - say, mineralogy - considers her/himself sufficiently competent in another field that - to the dabbling lay person - appears closely enough related. Let's face it, most lay persons will view all subjects that have an "-ology" in their name as near enough identical. Likewise, subjects with "-matics", etc.

Prof emeritus Plimer seems to fall into the "-ology" category: Geology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Climatology, Proctology, Biology ... one size Prof fits all.

Except, it doesn't. Read here: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

In late 2011, Professor Ian Plimer—a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background in climate science—released his latest book: How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.

In response to Professor Ian Plimer's 101 questions on climate change science, the department provides the document: Accurate Answers. The answers and comments provided are intended to give clear and accurate responses to Professor Plimer's questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer-reviewed science and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists.

(my bolds)

Now THAT would be something to quote from and put on our Budgie Smuggler's Must Read list.

 

[Julia]

Every once in a while, a university - even one of the "World's Best", so they claim - gets it wrong and awards someone a professorship, who, after closer scrutiny and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe should have failed a few steps on the way.

Every once in a while, a lecturer with some grounding in one subject - say, mineralogy - considers her/himself sufficiently competent in another field that - to the dabbling lay person - appears closely enough related. Let's face it, most lay persons will view all subjects that have an "-ology" in their name as near enough identical. Likewise, subjects with "-matics", etc.

Prof emeritus Plimer seems to fall into the "-ology" category: Geology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Climatology, Proctology, Biology ... one size Prof fits all.

Except, it doesn't. Read here: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

(my bolds)

Now THAT would be something to quote from and put on our Budgie Smuggler's Must Read list.

And Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????

 

[pixel]

And Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????

If you really don't know, a good starting point to answer your question would be here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
Scroll down to "Scientific Contributions"

 

[basilio]

Hows the noggin going NOCO ? Are you still totally incapable of reading and understanding any scientific paper worth its print ? Do you still just believe what rubbish your given as long as it suits your beliefs?

Clearly, most clearly.

That entire dribble you regurgitate from god knows where has been skewered a thousands, million times by every scientist who works in the earth science area. The BIG Lie about volcanoes being the super source of CO2 in the atmosphere was of course THE BIG LIE of his piece of total rubbish. Did you know Noco that Plimer never, ever offered specific references for this statement? He just threw it out there totally confident in the knowledge that a million deniers would gratefully repeat it at every opportunity.

But there is more isn't there? Somehow you have manged to come up with the weirdest statement that Global temperatures have fallen by .7 degrees in the last century.!!!

Now isn't that just fantastic. You have completely rewritten all the records of every meteorologist around the world in one line. How special is that .....

Comment: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science


“Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming ”” the Missing Science.” With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion.

Although discussions of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 5 percent of “Heaven and Earth’s” text, the alleged predominance of volcanic over human carbon dioxide emissions is one of its most publicized takeaway messages. And one that will reverberate in the media and blogosphere ”” no matter how vociferously professionals who investigate volcanic carbon dioxide emissions bristle and huff about how appallingly at odds Plimer’s claim is with our research findings.

The treatment of volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in this book illustrates one of the pathways by which myths, misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate. Like several climate skeptic publications, blogs and websites, “Heaven and Earth” does not provide the published estimates of the present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. These estimates are, ironically, “the missing science” of a book professing to rectify supposed excesses of missing science ”” a book that appears impressively authoritative by citing a mountain of scientific literature.

Several studies containing these estimates are among its 2,311 citations, but the estimates themselves are never divulged. Moreover, the book and other purveyors of this myth never explain, nor cite sources that explain, how it is known that volcanoes wholly outdo humans in adding carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere.

Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.

http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science

 

[SirRumpole]

Looks like noco goes on 'Ignore' on this subject.

 

[noco]

Looks like noco goes on 'Ignore' on this subject.

author’s credentials:

Ian Rutherford Plimeris an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.




Born
12 February 1946 (age 68)
Residence
Australia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia>
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Science> , Geology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology> ,Mining Engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Engineering>
Institutions
University of New England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_%28Australia%29> , University of Newcastle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle_%28Australia%29> , University of Melbourne <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne> , University of Adelaide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Adelaide>
Almamater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater>
University of New South Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales> , Macquarie University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University>
Thesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis>
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia <http://www.worldcat.org/title/pipe-deposits-of-tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth-in-eastern-australia/oclc/221677073> (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prize> (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_Medal> (2003), Clarke Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal> (2004)


Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?




Hope this helps Rumpy.
Sometimes it is better to ignore than to carry on trying to get your message across to Egg Heads who continue to character assassinate when they don't agree with you.

Civility costs nothing.

 

[SirRumpole]

Prof Pilmer seems well qualified in mineralogy, but not meteorology or climate science, so as others have pointed out his opinions on climate change only seem of value to those who want to agree with him because it makes them feel more comfortable, while ignoring the contrary opinions of those more qualified.

I think that is called "confirmation bias".

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

“We know that climate change is real,” Cook said on Tuesday. “Our view is that the time for talk has passed, and the time for action is now. We’ve shown that with what we’ve done.”

 

[basilio]

There is nothing wrong with Professor Plimers credentials on Earth Science. It is simply that his assertions on the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes in comparison to humanities contributions is totally and demonstrably false.

Every expert in the field has agreed that his figures are pure fiction. We can physically tell where the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from (fossil fuel use) by the different isotopes in the gas. This is all black and white stuff.

This has all been pointed out chapter and verse probably half a dozen times on this forum. It can be rediscovered with 5 minutes research on the web. When Noco and anyone else trots out the same ridiculous proven lies to bolster an untenable belief ... well you get called out for what you are.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

Not all carbon is equal

Carbon is released into the atmosphere from a variety of sources including respiration of plants and microbes, bushfires, volcanoes, and burning fossil fuels. Some of these mechanisms have a distinct carbon isotopic signature.

There are three types of carbon isotopes ”” molecules of carbon with different atomic weights: carbon-12 (12C), carbon-13 (13C) and carbon-14 (14C).

Carbon-12 is the most common form found in nature. Carbon-13 is about 1 per cent of the total. Carbon-14, which is produced in the upper atmosphere, accounts for an even much smaller amount.

Plants take up all forms of carbon in the process of photosynthesis, but they prefer the lighter carbon-12, leaving carbon-13 behind in the atmosphere.

"That enriches carbon-13 in the atmosphere compared to carbon-13 in the biosphere, which is why carbon-13 is more abundant in the atmosphere," says Fraser.

But measurements of the composition of CO2 show a decline in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere of about 3 per cent per year, says Fraser.

"The decline in carbon-13 is consistent with the carbon-13 composition of fossil fuels that are released to the atmosphere when they're burnt," says Fraser.

So how do we know that rising CO2 levels are caused by burning fossil fuels and not phenomena such as bushfires?

Fossil fuels ”” coal, oil and gas ”” are made out of ancient plants and microorganisms ”” so they are also depleted in carbon-13. The key difference is that, unlike living plant material, fossil fuels contain no carbon-14.

"Carbon-14 decays in the atmosphere at a known half life [of around 5,700] years, therefore fossil fuels, which are millions of years old, contain no carbon-14," explains Fraser.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/14/3452867.htm

 

[basilio]

Lets be a little fairer to Noco and the millions of other people who blindly repeat complete dribble.

The real villain in this case is Professor Plimer He is a scientist and with that background understands the importance of evidence when attempting to make a case. His book completely disregarded all the evidence around the causes of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

No one disputes that volcanoes emit large amounts of CO2. In the past they were the major factor in changing our climate. But in the last 50-150 years mankinds contribution to CO2 levels has totally outstripped all the input of volcanic activity.

Professor Plimer crime is ignoring the evidence of the remainder of the scientific arena to create a lie.

By the way you don't have to a climate scientist to support these studies. The question is not "How much impact does CO2 have on the climate ?" but "Where did the extra CO2 come from ?"

 

[Logique]

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.......

Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.

 

[basilio]

Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.

Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique? Perhaps more so because you have had the benefit of checking the information that shows how dishonest Professor Plimer is with his statements.

In what universe do people accept the assertion of one scientists, with no supportive evidence, against every other scientist in the same field who with reams of research identify the realities of the situation ? Obviously this one..

Simple denial.

 

[basilio]

By the way Pixels url which offered detailed answers to Professors Plimers notorious 101 questions is a good read. Goes through all the misleading questions and answers them clearly and succinctly.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf

 

[basilio]

I'll offer another perspective on this discussion perhaps to take the heat out of the science regarding climate change.

The biggest losers in a change of energy sources in our future will be the fossil fuel industry. They have made a squillion from providing coal, oil and natural gas. Business interest demands that this industry keeps on going - regardless of its effect on the environment.

So what happens if it becomes clear that in economic terms renewable energy is more competitive than fossil fuels ? When it is cheaper to run power stations and electric cars off wind, solar and battery banks than fossil fuels?

Apple has decided to fund an $800million solar power plant. It is not just to reduce CO2 emissions. It is because it will be cheaper. On a broader scale consider the logic in the following analysis.

Seven Reasons Cheap Oil Can't Stop Renewables Now
Oil is cheap. So is gas. Neither matters

Oil prices have fallen by more than half since July. Just five years ago, such a plunge in fossil fuels would have put the renewable-energy industry on bankruptcy watch. Today: Meh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-now

______________________________________________________________

And to see just how troubling the current drop in oil prices is for the fossil fuel industry check out the following story.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ion-of-investments-stranded-in-the-oil-fields

 

[Logique]

Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique? Perhaps more so because you have had the benefit of checking the information that shows how dishonest Professor Plimer is with his statements.

In what universe do people accept the assertion of one scientists, with no supportive evidence, against every other scientist in the same field who with reams of research identify the realities of the situation ? Obviously this one..

Simple denial.

Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.

In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.

In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting.

I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.

I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any others.

 

[noco]

I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.

I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any others.

Thanks Joe.

That is one of the reasons I have been absent lately....I hope the perpetrators take note...Character assassination is not the way to respond.

IMHO. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit from the uneducated.

 

[Julia]

If you really don't know,

I do know. The point of my comment is that his educational background, the BA in English and the doctorate in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of kangaroos, apart from the Earth Science degree, would appear to make him no more especially qualified to be an expert on climate change than many other scientists.

The fact that he has been appointed by a government of a particular view to climate related positions could just as well be the reflection of the natural desire to appoint someone who will endorse that government's point of view.
It seems to me quite possible that, had a different government wanted to appoint someone to reflect a different view they may have appointed someone like Professor Plimer.

Civility costs nothing.

+1

Prof Pilmer seems well qualified in mineralogy, but not meteorology or climate science, so as others have pointed out his opinions on climate change only seem of value to those who want to agree with him because it makes them feel more comfortable, while ignoring the contrary opinions of those more qualified.

I think that is called "confirmation bias".

You might like to point out Tim Flannery's specific qualifications in meteorology or climate science (as distinct from positions related to those sciences.)

Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique?

I seem to remember you pleading for reduction in abusive posts, basilio.
It's a while since I've seen a more unpleasant example of personal abuse toward two people who have simply expressed a point of view to which they're entitled.