Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Basilio, what do you mean by "the amount of carbon used" ?

(My bolds)

At one stage the program translated the amount of carbon dioxide used by an American family into the physical carbon equivalent. ( CO2 less the oxygen atoms). They had a tipper dumping hundreds of tons of (very black dirt) carbon around the family to demonstrate both how much carbon based fuel is taken out of the ground to feed our energy needs and in an oblique way point out that all this carbon does end up in atmosphere as CO2.

Worth a look.

 

[Ruby]

At one stage the program translated the amount of carbon dioxide used by an American family into the physical carbon equivalent. ( CO2 less the oxygen atoms). They had a tipper dumping hundreds of tons of (very black dirt) carbon around the family to demonstrate both how much carbon based fuel is taken out of the ground to feed our energy needs and in an oblique way point out that all this carbon does end up in atmosphere as CO2.

Worth a look.

"Amount of CO2 used"???? We don't "use" CO2. We produce it. Plants use it. What you are saying suggests to me you have no idea what the discussion is all about.

Furthermore, what you have illustrated is a totally meaningless exercise. Carbon, one of the earth's major elements, and part of all organic matter, is constantly being recycled. And no, all carbon does not end up as CO2 in the atmosphere. What a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Sure. See below. This is to Greg Combet. After 21 days without a response I will send a "Notice of Default". I sent back the carbon tax sillyness that came in the mail with my notice.

View attachment 43836

Note the format convention of how your name should appear in the notice - there are logical reasons, eg never use Mr, Mrs etc as you are standing under common law. Feel free to PM me with questions.

Tick-tock-tick-tock

Getting close now. Tim Flannery, William Steffen and Greg Combet have been all Noticed, still waiting for their responses.

Then the fun begins.

 

[Smurf1976]

Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......

Source WA water corp

The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.

There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.

 

[sptrawler]

Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......

Source WA water corp

The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.

Yes ifocus, thats brilliant, lets bring in a carbon tax that makes sod all difference. However it will put you out of work and put up your electricity costs.
But you can sit there all warm and glowing because you voted for the D!&k heads anyway.
Actually there is a guy at work that was ranting Kev07 back then. Even he is saying sod all now.
I don't understand where you are getting your undying motivation from? Maybe it is hereditary? I do have to take my hat off to undying loyalty, it was what got the boys over the trenches in WW1

 

[macca]

There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.

Hi Smurf,

Have the dams refilled yet ?

 

[springhill]

Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......

Source WA water corp

The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.

If you truly believe this Ifocus, when will you be putting your house on the market and leaving WA? Better get on it before the rest of the herd does and you still have some value. Just like Flannery espousing rising sea levels by up to 2m, yet he owns a flash waterfront house, you'd think somewhere like Alice Springs would be a place a paid up alarmist like him would feel more secure.
Hey never mind, according to his logic sea levels will rise to the point that the ocean will flood the inland and fill the dams up for us, will save me the cost of putting salt in my boiling pot of water when i cook my spuds and pasta.

You know full well that WA is moving from El Niño to La Nina ie. a wetter weather pattern, and that graph will reverse, or maybe according to you the trend will continue and we will have negative water flow in the dams in 5 years?

 

[Happy]

In colder temperate climate, when ventilation of hot-houses was not economical during winter and only excess moisture was removed from the air, there were fermenters used to replenish dwindling CO2 levels as system was effectively not connected to outside atmosphere.

If it were hydroponic systems, some small animals (guinea pigs or rabbits) were kept under the tables for the same reason.

Hence I always thought that slightly increased CO2 levels will be beneficial for plant life.

EDIT:
I know, I know, collected tax will be given to those less fortunate, so they don’t have to change a thing.

 

[basilio]

"Amount of CO2 used"???? We don't "use" CO2. We produce it. Plants use it. What you are saying suggests to me you have no idea what the discussion is all about.

Furthermore, what you have illustrated is a totally meaningless exercise. Carbon, one of the earth's major elements, and part of all organic matter, is constantly being recycled. And no, all carbon does not end up as CO2 in the atmosphere. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.

Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.

In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.

But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2, more warming.

(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)

 

[wayneL]

(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)

We've been through this numerous times now basilio

As discussed (but obviously you refuse to accept it), there are several dynamics that introduce artifact into the purported 'science', to the point that there must be doubt on everything.

In particular, the IPCC models are proving to be largely useless.

 

[Ruby]

Therefore more CO2, more warming.

Basilio, I know this is a circular argument, but emperical evidence has shown that this is not the case. Initially increased temp moved with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but this has levelled out. Now, although CO2 is increasing, temperature is not. This is what is being observed. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief system.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.

Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.

In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.

But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2, more warming.

(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)

Uh oh. Basilio is back with the same old propaganda - was it a nice holiday?

And what % of all CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man again Basilio? Is it still 3% or has the propaganda machine changed it?

While you were away have you found the observed evidence that shows the 3% is 100% responsible for driving "runaway" global warming? Or are u still referring to models and data with a heap of legal disclaimers? Please post a link of the study

 

[derty]

Basilio, I know this is a circular argument, but emperical evidence has shown that this is not the case. Initially increased temp moved with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but this has levelled out. Now, although CO2 is increasing, temperature is not. This is what is being observed. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief system.

What? It is doing no such thing. You are just regurgitating another anti-AGW meme based on small time periods and cherry picked start dates.. The surface and satellite data both show continued warming and when you correct for volcanic and ENSO variations the trend is clearly that of warming.

Uh oh. Basilio is back with the same old propaganda - was it a nice holiday?

And what % of all CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man again Basilio? Is it still 3% or has the propaganda machine changed it?

While you were away have you found the observed evidence that shows the 3% is 100% responsible for driving "runaway" global warming? Or are u still referring to models and data with a heap of legal disclaimers? Please post a link of the study

How can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.

 

[IFocus]

There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.

Glad to hear it Smurf its the outliers that fill up the aquifers.

 

[mexican]

Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.

Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.

In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.

But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2, more warming.

(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)

Bas....I think you are over looking something that is very significant in your post.
How much land has been logged in the past 200 and in particular in the last 50 years??

 

[IFocus]

If you truly believe this Ifocus, when will you be putting your house on the market and leaving WA? Better get on it before the rest of the herd does and you still have some value. Just like Flannery espousing rising sea levels by up to 2m, yet he owns a flash waterfront house, you'd think somewhere like Alice Springs would be a place a paid up alarmist like him would feel more secure.
Hey never mind, according to his logic sea levels will rise to the point that the ocean will flood the inland and fill the dams up for us, will save me the cost of putting salt in my boiling pot of water when i cook my spuds and pasta.

You know full well that WA is moving from El Niño to La Nina ie. a wetter weather pattern, and that graph will reverse, or maybe according to you the trend will continue and we will have negative water flow in the dams in 5 years?

The last outlier was around 1964 they are what make a serious impact on water catchment. Been a large number of cyclical El Niño to La Nina since then.

WA state governments Liberal and Labor have long been preparing for the invertible crunch in Perth's water supply pretty much non political simply because its reality.

Talking of reality surely you can see all the trees dying around the place from stress!

Am I going to leave WA?

Not while the WCE's are on their way to yet another premiership.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hi Smurf,

Have the dams refilled yet ?

It varies but:

Farm dams = generally would be full or nearly full.

Town water supplies (which in Tas are generally fairly small storages) = mostly full or close to it.

Hydro-electric storages = system as a whole is 52.1% at the moment, the highest level in years. The major storages are a little lower, whilst some of the minor storages are spilling due to recent high rainfall (there are significant floods in Tas at the moment) causing water to enter these minor storages more rapidly than it can be processed or diverted.

The highest level in recent times was 86% in 1997, and the lowest 16.9% in June 2008.
The all time lowest is 14.2% in 1968, and the last time storages approaced 100% was on several occasions in the mid-1970's.

There's a bit of a pattern to this and it generally involves many years of decline followed by a fairly rapid rise in storage.

14.2% in 1968 up to almost full by the early 1970's.

22% in 1991 up to 86% in 1997.

16.9% in 2008 up to 52% in 2011 and still rising.

 

[basilio]

Bas....I think you are over looking something that is very significant in your post.
How much land has been logged in the past 200 and in particular in the last 50 years??

Quite right Mexican. The sharp reduction of trees has been an additional factor in reducing the capacity of of the earth to effectively recycle carbon back into the soil. And of course warming of the oceans and the soils are also reducing their respective capacities to sequester carbon. Which further explains why the rate of CO2 increase is increasing. The curve is now exponential.

How can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.

Derty on Oz Wave Guy

With absolute certainty, complete ease and absolutely no respect for reality. Along with the vast majority of other posters on this topic.

_______________________________________________________________
I returned to the forum simply to draw some peoples attention to an excellent program. I have no further interest in responding to comments for the reasons I outlined above.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report

 

[OzWaveGuy]

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

Perhaps this line of investigation will yield Derty and Basilio the observed evidence they so desperately need - reduce CO2 to ward off alien attack. Let us know if you see any scout ships Basilio, and we'll all be sure to switch off anything that produces deadly CO2 gas to save the world. lol