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

Resisting Climate Hysteria


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.
 

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.

 
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.
 

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?
 

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?


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).


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
 
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?
 
...


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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!

 
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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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?
 

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%.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...