Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[SirRumpole]

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

Tim Flannery is one voice but there are a lot of highly qualified others saying the same thing as him, whereas the ranks of the scientific climate change sceptics seem to be rather thin.

 

[dutchie]

There's more money to be made for pro climate change than for non climate change.

 

[basilio]

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

Logique

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 other Joe Blow

Plus Julia comments

Strong comments wern't they ? Where do we start on this one.

Climate Change has always been a "robust"thread both here and elsewhere. I believe the point I was making was that the view offered by Professor Plimer and echoed by Noco and Logique has simply no evidence to support it. In fact when one examines the work of seemingly every other earth scientist they will say exactly the same thing - volcanoes produce only a very small fraction of the CO2 emissions.

This evidence is easily produced. That was why I found a couple of sources and in fact could quote hundreds more.

But we have been around this block many, many times. Noco and others repeat statements that are objectively wrong. Professor Plimer is, as I said, far more worthy of vilification because as a scientist he has a greater capacity to research and a far larger responsibility to publish accurate information. Perhaps it is an indictment on our system that he has managed to get away with publishing a gross error and repeating it ad nausem.

I was deliberately drawing attention to the ridiculousness of Noco's comments. I could have perhaps suggested he confirm his views after reading a wider selection of scientific literature. But that hasn't seemed to work in the last hundreds of discussions on the topic so I might be whistling dixie again.

There is nothing wrong with having different points of view. There is a problem, I suggest, when all objective evidence says your view goes against the evidence. Bit like saying that in your considered view Sydney won the 2014 AFL premiership. Or that the moon is made of green cheese.

In this conversation there is room for discussion about the science. Anyone care to comment on the rest of the Earth Scientists response to Professor Plimer ?

 

[orr]

Another Dunder head talking out of school on a subject he has obviously no relevance to and no understanding of;

http://www.ted.com/talks/lord_nicho...ate_and_what_we_might_do_about_it?language=en

Can someone help me understand as to why this 'pfffff' lord Stern receives the notoriety he does? beyond me.

'ohh' now I get it, here he is in the 'Age of Stupid';(now, at last, I feel at home with a few posters here)

http://vimeo.com/4844257

he comes in at around 11mins... and again at 29mins on comparative cost to GFC bank bailout costs vs climate mitigation

 

[noco]

Another Dunder head talking out of school on a subject he has obviously no relevance to and no understanding of;

http://www.ted.com/talks/lord_nicho...ate_and_what_we_might_do_about_it?language=en

Can someone help me understand as to why this 'pfffff' lord Stern receives the notoriety he does? beyond me.

'ohh' now I get it, here he is in the 'Age of Stupid';(now, at last, I feel at home with a few posters here)

http://vimeo.com/4844257

he comes in at around 11mins... and again at 29mins on comparative cost to GFC bank bailout costs vs climate mitigation

I listened to that U-Tube with interest but that goes back prior to the Copenhagen AGW summit in Kevin Rudd's era either 2008 or 2009 when he took over 100 people from Australia with him and we all know what happened at Copenhagen and all the annual summits thereafter.
Some research into the CO2 emissions from volcanoes revealed there are 3 types of volcanoes and one in particular emits more CO2 than others.

But some further searching reveals the myths and facts about climate change.

No doubt I will be stirring the pot again but the argument and facts from both alarmists and skeptics is far from settled and I cannot see it be settled in the next 100 years....The IPPC is not a scientific organization but a political one.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...n-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

 

[basilio]

The giant craters in Siberia are multiplying fast. Essentially they are the result of pressurized methane gas escaping through the thawing permafrost across Siberia.

A huge explosion, a monstrous crater and a continuous release of methane which is 2o times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2.

More Mysterious Craters Found in Siberia, Scientist Says 'Urgent’ Investigation Needed


.... Trapped gases

Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious, many scientists think they were created by explosions of high-pressure gas released from melting permafrost, or frozen soil, due to the warming of the climate.

"In my opinion, it definitely relates to warming and permafrost," said Vladimir Romanovsky,a geophysicist who studies permafrost at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Romanovskythinks he knows how this occurs: Pressurized gas ”” mostly methane, but possibly carbon dioxide as well ”” exists beneath the permafrost. Since warming temperatures thaw the permafrost from the bottom up, an underground cavity forms, Romanovsky said. As the gas gets close to the surface, it deforms the ground above, creating a small hill. Finally, the pressurized gas erupts through the surface, forming a crater, he said.

http://www.livescience.com/49965-siberian-craters-call-for-investigation.html

 

[Bintang]

The giant craters in Siberia are multiplying fast. Essentially they are the result of pressurized methane gas escaping through the thawing permafrost across Siberia.

A huge explosion, a monstrous crater and a continuous release of methane which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2.

There should be no doubt about this at all. The only thing mysterious to me is why the writer of the article feels it necessary to make this idiotic vacillation:

“Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious…”

 

[noco]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1425041430235

First they denied their warming predictions were false. Now they hunt for an excuse - and one that keeps their scare alive:

FORCES of natural climate variability have caused the apparent slowdown in global warming this century but the effect will be temporary, according to new research…

Byron Steinman, of the University of Minnesota Duluth, and Michael Mann and Sonya Miller, of Pennsylvania State University, found that these natural, or “internal”, forces had recently been offsetting the rise in global mean surface temperature caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

No doubt the alarmist will will say these people are talking rubbish.

 

[Bintang]

I just remembered that back in 2005 when I used to actively post on the Peak Oil forum (not as Bintang) I asked a question about when the arctic tundra would start burping up its methane. My question was pretty much ignored at the time and didn’t generate much interest (I'm surprised I was able to retrieve the post after all this time):



It’s nearly 10 years since I visited that forum but now I see that the subject I touched on in 2005 is receiving a lot more attention

Huge pits forming in Arctic permafrost
http://peakoil.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=70080

 

[basilio]

The concern about the release of huge uncontrollable amounts of methane from the melting tundra is certainly in the minds of scientists who are directly aware of the situation. My memory says that previous very rapid global warmings were caused by the breakdown of frozen methane.

http://www.livescience.com/37359-nasa-carve-thawing-permafrost-gas.html

_______________________________________________________________________

Noco I think you have misunderstood the research highlighted by Andrew Bolt.
The research points out that there are factors that can temporarily reduce temperatures and effectively mask the underlying increase in the earths temperature. That is what Michel Mann et al are saying.

Of course Andrew Bolt just decided to accept one part of their research - the short term effects of increased winds over the ocean etc. Of course Andrew never accepts the remainder of the science around global warming from the same scientists. Very selective indeed.

 

[sydboy007]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/26/3627490/china-coal-peak/

China cut its coal consumption 2.9 percent in 2014, the first drop this century. Domestic coal production fell 2.5 percent.

For some reason we still want to build new coal mines in this country

 

[Smurf1976]

A drop in China's coal consumption is one thing. They're bringing on quite a lot of non-coal energy supply (hydro, nuclear, gas, wind etc) and there is also the apparent slowdown in construction and steel production (which uses coal).

It's the drop in coal production that I see as potentially more significant and which many will be watching with ongoing interest. By most estimates China's coal reserves are actually quite limited and the mining of 3 billion or so tonnes per year never was going to last long. In that case, if China has hit peak coal in terms of production (irrespective of demand) then things could get rather interesting in the years ahead and those Australian coal mines may well turn out to be highly profitable.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Some nice snow storms last night here in Tasmania , Mount Wellington in Hobart covered in lovely Spring snow.
I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.

 

[Knobby22]

I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.

I hope so. We just had our warmest year ever and we need to hope we have a counter acting force however natural climate effects are probably too slow.

 

[explod]

Some nice snow storms last night here in Tasmania , Mount Wellington in Hobart covered in lovely Spring snow.
I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.

Gee, that's nice, in the autumn too.

The two poles have been like solid castles, but as they crumble some of the stones roll out over the field.

shocking drought over most of inland Australia.

What we have due to the warming is absorbance and distribution.

Worth reading up on. Very alarming actually.

 

[noco]

We have been repeated told by the alarmist, including the Flannery nut, there would be more cyclones and more intense than ever before.

We have really only had one cat. 3 this year in Queensland which passed over Yeppoon and Rockhampton....The alarmist tried to make out it was a cat 5 just to make it look bad.

 

[Knobby22]

Sorry noco, incorrect.
The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.

Damn UN went on about it over the weekend.
Refer Matt Wade, the Age. Today for the link.

Don't refer newscorp.

 

[noco]

Sorry noco, incorrect.
The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.

Damn UN went on about it over the weekend.
Refer Matt Wade, the Age. Today for the link.

Don't refer newscorp.

So how come we missed out in NQ?......One small cat 3 hit Yeppoon......The alarmist tried hard to make a cat 5.

I was in Nadi 1993 when CAT 4 Joni hit Fiji.

 

[noco]

Sorry noco, incorrect.
The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.

Damn UN went on about it over the weekend.
Refer Matt Wade, the Age. Today for the link.

Don't refer newscorp.

So here we go again with a renewed surge by the alarmist....Perhaps you should do some research on the activities before 1994.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...food-taste-funny/story-fni0ffxg-1227263711422

 

[Knobby22]

How can Andrew say there has been no global warming for 17 years when we just had our hottest year ever?