Just look at the experts from the right crawl out from under their rocks to tell us that the CSIRO is wrong. Of course the LNP knows better with their lumps of coal in one hand and their dicks in the other :D LOL

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-set-for-more-heatwaves-and-fires-as-climate-change-hits-report


Quote:

Australia set for more heatwaves and fires as climate change hits: report The State of the Climate 2018 report painted a grim picture of Australia's future. Australia's key climate agencies are forecasting a bleak outlook for Australia, with the country increasingly feeling the effects of the world's changing climate. The State of the Climate 2018 report, prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, has warned of more heatwaves and extreme fire weather around Australia as global temperatures continue to rise. Those rises are commonly attributed to an increase in emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, working alongside other variables like the El Nino or La Nina events. Director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO, Dr Helen Cleugh, said CO2 levels were unprecedented. "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910.

It was the Friday before Christmas, when the Coalition government traditionally releases all their bad news...

Australia to miss 2030 emissions targets by vast margin, Coalition's projections reveal

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:54am:

Just look at the experts from the right crawl out from under their rocks to tell us that the CSIRO is wrong. Of course the LNP knows better with their lumps of coal in one hand and their dicks in the other :D LOL https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-set-for-more-heatwaves-and-fires-as-climate-change-hits-report Quote: Australia set for more heatwaves and fires as climate change hits: report The State of the Climate 2018 report painted a grim picture of Australia's future. Australia's key climate agencies are forecasting a bleak outlook for Australia, with the country increasingly feeling the effects of the world's changing climate. The State of the Climate 2018 report, prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, has warned of more heatwaves and extreme fire weather around Australia as global temperatures continue to rise. Those rises are commonly attributed to an increase in emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, working alongside other variables like the El Nino or La Nina events. Director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO, Dr Helen Cleugh, said CO2 levels were unprecedented. "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910.

They've been saying that for the last 20 years.

How many times have we been beyond the point of no return.

Quick set up that carbon derivatives market that will financial enslave us and make the oligarchy even richer.

Then we will be saved.

Even though more and more CO2 will be released in to the atmosphere.

As long as we pay we are saved.

WTFU.

Gee whizz, Lee will have some work to do now, he now has to debunk the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, WIKI and 97% of the climate scientists.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 4:35pm:

Gee whizz, Lee will have some work to do now, he now has to debunk the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, WIKI and 97% of the climate scientists.

Lee's tactic is to cherry pick and divert the debate to one irrelevant issue....He will argue that 97% consensus of climate scientists is bunkum and that discredits all the science of global warming....Climate Change denial 101!!!

::) ::) ::)

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:54am:

"CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years."

They have CO2 observations going back 2 million years? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

We have proxy data going back that far. They are not observations.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 4:44pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 4:35pm: Gee whizz, Lee will have some work to do now, he now has to debunk the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, WIKI and 97% of the climate scientists. Lee's tactic is to cherry pick and divert the debate to one irrelevant issue....He will argue that 97% consensus of climate scientists is bunkum and that discredits all the science of global warming....Climate Change denial 101!!! ::) ::) ::)

I know,, I would just like to know his motives.

I would also like to know if he has any viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels given that he has accepted the pollutants being spewed out will kill us, even if he doesn't acknowledge the global warming effect.

Ajax wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 10:54am: Just look at the experts from the right crawl out from under their rocks to tell us that the CSIRO is wrong. Of course the LNP knows better with their lumps of coal in one hand and their dicks in the other :D LOL https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-set-for-more-heatwaves-and-fires-as-climate-change-hits-report Quote: Australia set for more heatwaves and fires as climate change hits: report The State of the Climate 2018 report painted a grim picture of Australia's future. Australia's key climate agencies are forecasting a bleak outlook for Australia, with the country increasingly feeling the effects of the world's changing climate. The State of the Climate 2018 report, prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, has warned of more heatwaves and extreme fire weather around Australia as global temperatures continue to rise. Those rises are commonly attributed to an increase in emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, working alongside other variables like the El Nino or La Nina events. Director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO, Dr Helen Cleugh, said CO2 levels were unprecedented. "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910. They've been saying that for the last 20 years. How many times have we been beyond the point of no return. Quick set up that carbon derivatives market that will financial enslave us and make the oligarchy even richer. Then we will be saved. Even though more and more CO2 will be released in to the atmosphere. As long as we pay we are saved. WTFU.

as opposed to getting ripped off by the fossil fool oligarchy. Don't forget to spend up big at coles to get your shopper docker so you can get 4 cents off a liter. And do a try and avoid the weekly price gouging cycle :D LOL

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 4:57pm:

I would also like to know if he has any viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels given that he has accepted the pollutants being spewed out will kill us, even if he doesn't acknowledge the global warming effect.

You have heard of nuclear.

I also have never said CO2 does not cause warming. What you have to do is sort out how much warming is caused by man and how much is natural. In a simple 3 part calculation eg A+B=C you need  2 of the knowns to calculate the third;)

BTW- Just where in Australia are people "choking to death". Your choice of words. But no supporting evidence. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 4:46pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 10:54am: "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." They have CO2 observations going back 2 million years? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D We have proxy data going back that far. They are not observations.

The CO2 records are derived from untouched ice core samples. And that is not ice that you and your retarded LNP mates put into their veins :D LOL

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:24pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 4:57pm: I would also like to know if he has any viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels given that he has accepted the pollutants being spewed out will kill us, even if he doesn't acknowledge the global warming effect. You have heard of nuclear. I also have never said CO2 does not cause warming. What you have to do is sort out how much warming is caused by man and how much is natural. In a simple 3 part calculation eg A+B=C you need at least 2 of the knowns to form the equation. ;) BTW- Just where in Australia are people "choking to death". Your choice of words. But no supporting evidence. ;)

In traffic jams !

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:27pm:

The CO2 records are derived from untouched ice core samples.

Yes petal. And I have told you repeatedly and given the scientific references about the problems of CO2 in the firn, the errors that abound.

But you seem to have the attention span of a guppy.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:28pm:

In traffic jams !

Scientifically proven or mere conjecture?

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:24pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 4:57pm: I would also like to know if he has any viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels given that he has accepted the pollutants being spewed out will kill us, even if he doesn't acknowledge the global warming effect. You have heard of nuclear. I also have never said CO2 does not cause warming. What you have to do is sort out how much warming is caused by man and how much is natural. In a simple 3 part calculation eg A+B=C you need  2 of the knowns to calculate the third;) BTW- Just where in Australia are people "choking to death". Your choice of words. But no supporting evidence. ;)

Yes I have heard of nuclear and have been advocating nuclear since the 70's, some mutual ground here.

As far as global warming goes you had better go and do some research real damn quick.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 6:25pm:

As far as global warming goes you had better go and do some research real damn quick.

perhaps you can give me the scientific references you think I need.

You mean like -


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:54am:

The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910.

Now using liquid in glass thermometers the greatest accuracy you can get is +/- 0.5. Of course there are other errors - parallax being but one. So to put that quote in context what they could say is it has warmed 1.0 degree +/- 0.5. And then of course averaging only those temperatures for which you have readings; never mind the vast expanses of Australia where there are no readings. BTW - you can't average out your errors. So it may have warmed 0.5 degrees. Of course that is the mean temperature not the maximum and not the minimum.

Of course I don't live in a mean temperature environment. At my place at the moment it varies from a minimum of about 16 degrees to a maximum of about thirty degrees. So each day it varies by 14 degrees. And I should be worried about a putative 1.0 degree? laughable.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:34pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:28pm: In traffic jams ! Scientifically proven or mere conjecture?

Yes the same type of scientists who were telling us 50 years ago the the Marlboro man was a bad idea and then no, eating asbestos sandwiches will kill you. They have been panicking the world needlessly for over half a century for no reason and still at it today ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 7:19pm:

Yes the same type of scientists who were telling us 50 years ago the the Marlboro man was a bad idea and then no, eating asbestos sandwiches will kill you. They have been panicking the world needlessly for over half a century for no reason and still at it today ?

Wow. I wasn't sure about your mentality. i am now. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 7:19pm:

lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:34pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:28pm: In traffic jams ! Scientifically proven or mere conjecture? Yes the same type of scientists who were telling us 50 years ago the the Marlboro man was a bad idea and then no, eating asbestos sandwiches will kill you. They have been panicking the world needlessly for over half a century for no reason and still at it today ?

is it JUST Australia that is causing all this CO2?...

in Europe they build massive planes all using steel all using fossil fuel  to fly everywhere... if its not planes its CARS  and TRAINS...all massive all going hell for leather 24/7....all full of people...

they even encourage huge car races... yacht races....again using fossil fuel..I havent seen one person condemn that...

the world demands we build more hospitals schools Universities ........really how to do that without creating more CO2. 

what about population growth....has anyone suggested certain continents curtail their birth rate????

I can only guess what those disposable nappies are doing to our atmosphere levels.....and thats only one thing.. what about those dummies  and empty formula tins...
where do they all end up?...

is this sounding hysterical?..

just think fewer people  :-[ less of everything....


just sayin!

cods wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

is it JUST Australia that is causing all this CO2?...

Actually to the surprise of most Australia is one of the big 3 carbon (read CO2) sinks.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:27pm: The CO2 records are derived from untouched ice core samples. Yes petal. And I have told you repeatedly and given the scientific references about the problems of CO2 in the firn, the errors that abound. But you seem to have the attention span of a guppy.

Where did you get your references from ? The Murdoch press by any chance ? :D LOL

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 7:19pm:

lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:34pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:28pm: In traffic jams ! Scientifically proven or mere conjecture? Yes the same type of scientists who were telling us 50 years ago the the Marlboro man was a bad idea and then no, eating asbestos sandwiches will kill you. They have been panicking the world needlessly for over half a century for no reason and still at it today ?

And the threat to the ozone layer from CFC's which according to lee was never a threat at all :D LOL

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 5:34pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 5:28pm: In traffic jams ! Scientifically proven or mere conjecture?

No a statistically significant death toll of people who live near a steel works and breath in that lovely polluted air that apparently can't harm you !!

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/locals-takes-on-corruption-and-air-pollution-to/10587498


Quote:

Locals take on corruption and air pollution to try and close Europe's biggest steel works In the south of Italy, a major corruption trial is underway that is pitting a local community against Europe's biggest steelworks, the Ilva plant in Taranto. The pollution from the plant is so bad it has been blamed in official government reports for the deaths of almost 400 local residents. The former owners of the company have been accused of crimes against public safety.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And the threat to the ozone layer from CFC's which according to lee was never a threat at all

Oh you mean the hole that was never a hole. the hole that was weak when first measured. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:34pm:

No a statistically significant death toll of people who live near a steel works and breath in that lovely polluted air that apparently can't harm you !!

Ah yes. Statistics. Those things that can have some impact on probability. They don't however prove cause.

To do that you need autopsies. Blaming things and proving things are too entirely different things.

And not one mention of proof anywhere.

But xeej was saying it was fossil fuels wot dunnit. What is the postulated cause from a steel mill? Do they have a fossil fuel plant attached? It seems not otherwise they would blame the fossil fuel.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:36pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 11:25pm: And the threat to the ozone layer from CFC's which according to lee was never a threat at all Oh you mean the hole that was never a hole. the hole that was weak when first measured. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

he we go again. you get that one from your 101 excuse book too :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:24pm:

Where did you get your references from ? The Murdoch press by any chance ?

Oh dear. As I said the attention span of a guppy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:42pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 11:34pm: No a statistically significant death toll of people who live near a steel works and breath in that lovely polluted air that apparently can't harm you !! Ah yes. Statistics. Those things that can have some impact on probability. They don't however prove cause. To do that you need autopsies. Blaming things and proving things are too entirely different things. And not one mention of proof anywhere. But xeej was saying it was fossil fuels wot dunnit. What is the postulated cause from a steel mill? Do they have a fossil fuel plant attached? It seems not otherwise they would blame the fossil fuel.

The deaths are the proof you moreon.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:45pm:

The deaths are the proof you moreon.

Proof that they died. Not proof of cause of death.

I take it back - it should be you have the attention span of a gnat.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 11:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 11:45pm: The deaths are the proof you moreon. Proof that they died. Not proof of cause of death. I take it back - it should be you have the attention span of a gnat.

And you have got the same IQ and the same intellect as Donald Dump and Tiny Abort. You should stick to reading Phantom comics because that's how seriously the scientific community take people like you and the rest of the retards in the LNP lineup. Just as well we only have to put with another 4 months of this trash before it gets disposed of permanently.

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-coal-is-good-for-humanity-coal-is-good-for-prosperity-coal-is-an-essential-part-of-our-tony-abbott-91-90-45.jpg

https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/1075664698433953794

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02am:

https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/1075664698433953794

Even the state liberal pollies think the fed liberal government are retards !

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02am:

And you have got the same IQ and the same intellect as Donald Dump and Tiny Abort. You should stick to reading Phantom comics because that's how seriously the scientific community take people like you and the rest of the retards in the LNP lineup.

Oh dear. Supports his lack of proof with more vitriol. Poor lamb.

Did you read or listen to all of it? Or just the part that seemed to support your conclusion?

"LINTON BESSER: What makes working at the steelworks even harder, though, is that Fabio Cocco knows pollution from the plant is slowly killing the people around him."

So the worker "just knows".

"GRAZIA PARISI, PAEDIATRICIAN: (translation) So on the wind days I see countless coughs; I see countless attacks of asthma. Then children vomit on the streets because there is a strong pungent odour. There are minerals in their throat, in their nose."

And not ONE link to death. Being sick is part of being alive.


BTW- You had to travel a long way to get from Australian's "choking to death". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:54am:

Just look at the experts from the right crawl out from under their rocks to tell us that the CSIRO is wrong. Of course the LNP knows better with their lumps of coal in one hand and their dicks in the other :D LOL https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-set-for-more-heatwaves-and-fires-as-climate-change-hits-report Quote: Australia set for more heatwaves and fires as climate change hits: report The State of the Climate 2018 report painted a grim picture of Australia's future. Australia's key climate agencies are forecasting a bleak outlook for Australia, with the country increasingly feeling the effects of the world's changing climate. The State of the Climate 2018 report, prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, has warned of more heatwaves and extreme fire weather around Australia as global temperatures continue to rise. Those rises are commonly attributed to an increase in emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, working alongside other variables like the El Nino or La Nina events. Director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO, Dr Helen Cleugh, said CO2 levels were unprecedented. "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910.

It is simply impossible that such a complex system as planetary climate (incompletely understood because of the complexity) can be confidently declared to be controlled by a trace gas that is the principal source of food for plant life. 

The human source of co2 in the atmosphere is smaller than the natural sources of it. All combined, it's  still only 0.04 %. That is 4 percent of 1 percent. Instead of 0.035 %, that is, 3.5 percent of 1 percent.

And the Sun has nuffin to do wiv nuffin, of course. It's  ALL that half percent of 1 percent that makes all the difference. And people are zealous and manic about it because they  always need some sort of doom to fret about and, more importantly, to berate and browbeat others about.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 8:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21st, 2018 at 7:19pm: Yes the same type of scientists who were telling us 50 years ago the the Marlboro man was a bad idea and then no, eating asbestos sandwiches will kill you. They have been panicking the world needlessly for over half a century for no reason and still at it today ? Wow. I wasn't sure about your mentality. i am now. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yours was never in doubt.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Yours was never in doubt.

I know. it is so superior. ;)

41 degrees in Perth at the moment.

:-[

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 3:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 2:35pm: Yours was never in doubt. I know. it is so superior. ;)

Yes almost the equivalent IQ of a dead wombat.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 3:59pm:

lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 2:35pm: Yours was never in doubt. I know. it is so superior. ;) Yes almost the equivalent IQ of a dead wombat.

So given mine is far superior to yours,as admitted, yours must be very low indeed. ;)

Lee continually flies in the face of 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM.

Does black lung disease or lead poisoning qualify as choking to death in Australia Lee?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 11:45am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 12:02am: And you have got the same IQ and the same intellect as Donald Dump and Tiny Abort. You should stick to reading Phantom comics because that's how seriously the scientific community take people like you and the rest of the retards in the LNP lineup. Oh dear. Supports his lack of proof with more vitriol. Poor lamb. Did you read or listen to all of it? Or just the part that seemed to support your conclusion? "LINTON BESSER: What makes working at the steelworks even harder, though, is that Fabio Cocco knows pollution from the plant is slowly killing the people around him." So the worker "just knows". "GRAZIA PARISI, PAEDIATRICIAN: (translation) So on the wind days I see countless coughs; I see countless attacks of asthma. Then children vomit on the streets because there is a strong pungent odour. There are minerals in their throat, in their nose." And not ONE link to death. Being sick is part of being alive. BTW- You had to travel a long way to get from Australian's "choking to death". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Trump and Tiny Abort agrees with you. What does that say about yourself ? :D LOL

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 4:32pm:

97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM.

What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them.

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 4:45pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them.

Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century.

We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it.

I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 4:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 3:59pm: lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 2:35pm: Yours was never in doubt. I know. it is so superior. ;) Yes almost the equivalent IQ of a dead wombat. So given mine is far superior to yours,as admitted, yours must be very low indeed. ;)

So given mine is far superior to yours nobody


I fear that I give credence to that view every time I respond to you


Quote:

as admitted,

Fair stretch to conclude that.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 5:10pm:

So given mine is far superior to yours nobody

Oh look Dna can change people's posts. Outstanding stuff.


Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 5:10pm:

Quote: as admitted, Fair stretch to conclude that.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 3:52pm:

I know. it is so superior.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Yes almost the equivalent IQ of a dead wombat.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 4:32pm:

Lee continually flies in the face of 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. Does black lung disease or lead poisoning qualify as choking to death in Australia Lee?

Poor xeej continues to confuse 97.1% of 33.6% of climate abstracts with 97% of climate scientists. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 4:37pm:

Trump and Tiny Abort agrees with you. What does that say about yourself ?

Oh dear. Couldn't sustain the argument and changed the goal posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 5:04pm:

I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century.

temperature has increased by how much in that 50 Years? reference?

Drought? Rain? Floods?

In which part of the world do you live?

why do these threads always end up in a slanging match.....always always..

none of you work for the CSIRO  or NASA or climatologist scientists...

so you really only believe the one side... the one  who agrees with you... ::) ::)

makes sense to some.. ::)

as it is those who expect to be here in 2030   .... if this planet gets there...

its hard to tell with the doomsayers  panicking every school child into thinking the world will end... before then....

maybe lee and Co will get the last laugh.....

"Unadjusted temperatures published by the Weather Bureau in the mid 20th century indicate a warmer Australian climate before 1940 than calculated with RAW or ACORN adjustments and suggest warming from the 1800s to 2014 at approximately half the rate calculated by ACORN since 1910.


Pristine historic Weather Bureau temperatures from 226 weather stations before 1931 and from 44 stations between 1911 and 1940 can be compared against corresponding locations within Bureau of Meteorology RAW data and adjusted ACORN temperatures.


Among 226 locations listed by the CSIR, the mean temperature increased 0.5C from <1931 to 2000-2014, or 0.4586C to be precise."

http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html

With the attendant errors of +/-0.5C from liquid-in-glass thermometers.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 5:47pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. temperature has increased by how much in that 50 Years? reference? Drought? Rain? Floods? In which part of the world do you live?

I have lived in the southern half of SA, the winter cold fronts are rare now, many other changes. farming practices have also changed.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:03pm:

I have lived in the southern half of SA, the winter cold fronts are rare now, many other changes. farming practices have also changed.

So no data then, merely anecdotal evidence. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:04pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:03pm: I have lived in the southern half of SA, the winter cold fronts are rare now, many other changes. farming practices have also changed. So no data then, merely anecdotal evidence. ;)

No, no data, just my word and those that back me up, like 97% of climate scientists, NASA, the CSIRO, BOM and WIKI.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:04pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:03pm: I have lived in the southern half of SA, the winter cold fronts are rare now, many other changes. farming practices have also changed. So no data then, merely anecdotal evidence. ;)

Did you read the CSIRO report that this topic is based on, it has all the data that you won't believe anyway. ?

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 5:04pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high.

You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting.


Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant.

What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation.

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:21pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation.

5 billion cars on the road spewing out mega tons of carbon monoxide are not of a concern of yours!

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:21pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation.

You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:31pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ?

That might be a little to confronting Duck, can you tone it down a bit..

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:20pm:

Did you read the CSIRO report that this topic is based on, it has all the data that you won't believe anyway. ?

Does it? So according to the CSIRO we have warmed 1C. According to the unadjusted data we have warmed 0.5C. And that data going all the way back has uncertainties of +/-0.5C as well.

So tell me exactly how much has Australia warmed?

Then of course there is this -

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018/Report-at-a-glance

page 22 of 24.

"Australia’s average annual temperature relative to the 1861–1900 period. "

But BOM insist that there is no reliable data before 1910. How bizarre is that?

Comparisons to an unreliable start point.

And then Simulations of past climate - surely they have data for that? Or perhaps not.

And then Simulations of past climate without human emissions. Which of course is one big WAG. (Wild Assed Guess)

Models. ALL. THE. WAY. DOWN.

And nowhere in the report do they actually define what temperature an "extreme
heat event" is. 36C? 38C? 40C?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:20pm: Did you read the CSIRO report that this topic is based on, it has all the data that you won't believe anyway. ? Does it? So according to the CSIRO we have warmed 1C. According to the unadjusted data we have warmed 0.5C. And that data going all the way back has uncertainties of +/-0.5C as well. So tell me exactly how much has Australia warmed? Then of course there is this - https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018/Report-at-a-glance page 22 of 24. "Australia’s average annual temperature relative to the 1861–1900 period. " But BOM insist that there is no reliable data before 1910. How bizarre is that? Comparisons to an unreliable start point. And then Simulations of past climate - surely they have data for that? Or perhaps not. And then Simulations of past climate without human emissions. Which of course is one big WAG. (Wild Assed Guess) Models. ALL. THE. WAY. DOWN. And nowhere in the report do they actually define what temperature an "extreme heat event" is. 36C? 38C? 40C?

You are really clasping at straws now Lee, sometimes  you just have to fold.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 7:10pm:

You are really clasping at straws now Lee, sometimes  you just have to fold.

Now you are really showing you don't have a clue. Just a generic try at a put down. Your mother must be so disappointed in you.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:31pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ?

You are emoting. You understand nothing.  It's  way over your head so emotional correctness is all you have.

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 7:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:31pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ? You are emoting. You understand nothing.  It's  way over your head so emotional correctness is all you have.

The absolute reality is that if you are wrong and all the science is correct and we do nothing because so many people are convinced that it is untrue then a lot of people are going to die.

Call it emotive if you like but the problem is that it is the truth.

I have done some work with people who do science with the CSIRO, I don't think you have any idea how smart those guys are.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 6:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:31pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ? That might be a little to confronting Duck, can you tone it down a bit..

It is a little confronting because that is the reality.

If climate change is real and we do nothing the result will be that many millions of people will die. I have little issue with connecting the people who help to cause this to be impacted in the outcome.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 7:53pm:

The absolute reality is that if you are wrong and all the science is correct and we do nothing because so many people are convinced that it is untrue then a lot of people are going to die.

oh IFS? A lot of people are going to die anyway. That's what happens at the end of life.

Then you have the Eugenicists who insist that there are too many people. They want them to die.

Depriving people of affordable electricity is one way. They can continue to cook on dung stoves. That will serve them right. /sarc.

They can deny affordable electricity in colder countries; cold kills more than heat.

I see that Germany, the Green country, has increasing CO2 emissions despite the Energiewende program.

I guess they won't be meeting their Paris Commitment. In fact the EU as a whole is in the same boat as Australia.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 7:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:31pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ? You are emoting. You understand nothing.  It's  way over your head so emotional correctness is all you have. The absolute reality is that if you are wrong and all the science is correct and we do nothing because so many people are convinced that it is untrue then a lot of people are going to die. Call it emotive if you like but the problem is that it is the truth. I have done some work with people who do science with the CSIRO, I don't think you have any idea how smart those guys are.

What kind of work did you do with them?
Office cleaning? Deliveries? Scientific analysis? What?

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 8:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 7:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:31pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ? You are emoting. You understand nothing.  It's  way over your head so emotional correctness is all you have. The absolute reality is that if you are wrong and all the science is correct and we do nothing because so many people are convinced that it is untrue then a lot of people are going to die. Call it emotive if you like but the problem is that it is the truth. I have done some work with people who do science with the CSIRO, I don't think you have any idea how smart those guys are. What kind of work did you do with them? Office cleaning? Deliveries? Scientific analysis? What?

Technical support & IT. I never said that I am that smart But some of them sure are.

Also never said I worked at or for CSIRO - worked with some of the science people who did work for CSIRO.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: The absolute reality is that if you are wrong and all the science is correct and we do nothing because so many people are convinced that it is untrue then a lot of people are going to die. oh IFS? A lot of people are going to die anyway. That's what happens at the end of life. Then you have the Eugenicists who insist that there are too many people. They want them to die. Depriving people of affordable electricity is one way. They can continue to cook on dung stoves. That will serve them right. /sarc. They can deny affordable electricity in colder countries; cold kills more than heat. I see that Germany, the Green country, has increasing CO2 emissions despite the Energiewende program. I guess they won't be meeting their Paris Commitment. In fact the EU as a whole is in the same boat as Australia.

Was plan "B" to post something that made sense or different garbage ?


Quote:

oh IFS? A lot of people are going to die anyway.

So potentially tens of millions extra dying because of the impact of AGW is no problem ? Really.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:31pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 6:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 5:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Dec 22nd, 2018 at 4:32pm: 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, WIKI the CSIRO and the BOM. What ARE these experts saying? I dare you to tell us what you understand of them. Climate change is upon us, we can choose to ignore the statistics or the opinions of 97% of the climate scientists and the rest. I see it in my own part of the world over the last half a century. We are the first generation to realize climate change and the last generation that can do anything about it. I for one would not be prepared to gamble when the stakes are so high. You do realise that you are not saying anything other emoting. Climate change - what causes it? Not human CO2 - it is so insignificant among all the factors of the climate - only dimply understood in its totality - as to be laughably insignificant. What can we do to influence the climate if we are not changing it? Nothing but adaptation. You happy to put your great grandchildren's names on the list of those to not survive if you are wrong ? That might be a little to confronting Duck, can you tone it down a bit.. It is a little confronting because that is the reality. If climate change is real and we do nothing the result will be that many millions of people will die. I have little issue with connecting the people who help to cause this to be impacted in the outcome.

so tomorrow the whole world stops using fossil fuel....

fixed done........

how long before it reverses GW?

IF ONE accepts doomsday is round the corner...

and the only way to stop it or at the least slow it down is to do what???.........

can we find a better way to use fossil fuel?....

or is that impossible or too late?

if we stop using fossil fuel of any kind... and it will affect the WHOLE WORLD....and not in a good way...

what will we do for countries that depend completely on oil.? 


what are Climatologists plan Bs.....??

you claim every thing we do or dont do is a gamble....

and you want us to gamble on the side of scientists..

I remember its scientists who created the most destructive bomb  ever made.....

they have also created WMD and now nuclear chemical and biological weapons that  countries use to threaten each other...  all death machines....death to humans and death to the planet..




it seems to me    guys like you dna  are saying its too little too late...anyway.... ::) ::)

and no matter what Australia does it will never be enough..

That's why the conservatives only have 4 months before they get booted out into the political history bin because you lot just don't care about what you do ! All you lot care about is ripping everyone off on their energy needs :(

It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference.

https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg

Ajax wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 10:09am:

It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference. https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg

What about the sh.t that you export to everywhere else ? Would that make a difference ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 10:43pm:

Was plan "B" to post something that made sense or different garbage ?

Poor Dna, I didn't think you were that thick.


Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2018 at 10:43pm:

So potentially tens of millions extra dying because of the impact of AGW is no problem ?

Oh. Potentially? can you show me a reference for that.

meanwhile -

"Over two-thirds of Indians still burn wood and dung-based fuel for cooking, leading to a million deaths a year from indoor pollution"

"The World Health Organization Household Air Pollution and Health report released in March this year states that over 50% of premature deaths among children under five are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution. Over 3.8 million premature deaths annually from non-communicable diseases including stroke, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer are attributed to exposure to household air pollution, adds the report."

https://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2014/07/17/millions-die-indians-still-cook-wood-dung/

1 million deaths a year in India alone from dung and wood fires - (no modern stoves).
In 10 years India alone would wipe out your potential 10 million. And that's happening now not potentially.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 10:23am:

What about the sh.t that you export to everywhere else ? Would that make a difference ?

The buyers should know all the claims on CO2 rise. They are masters of their own destiny, as we are of ours.

Ajax wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 10:09am:

It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference. https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg

It is that sort of attitude that has got the planet into this mess in the first place
It's interesting to note that per capita we are one of the highest at 18.6

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:09am:

It's interesting to note that per capita we are one of the highest at 18.6

Oh dear. barney must want us all to move to the manufacturing south eats corner of the continent so we won't have all those nasty transport emissions. ;D ;D ;D

Or of course he could actually debate about how we could overcome that. Large areas to transport goods, large areas to provide electricity, large areas to transport people.

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:15am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:09am: It's interesting to note that per capita we are one of the highest at 18.6 Oh dear. barney must want us all to move to the manufacturing south eats corner of the continent so we won't have all those nasty transport emissions. ;D ;D ;D Or of course he could actually debate about how we could overcome that. Large areas to transport goods, large areas to provide electricity, large areas to transport people.

Where did I say that?
Your post is what's called a strawman fallacy. hardly surprising coming from you.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:19am:

Where did I say that?

Oh dear barney and his lack of comprehension skills.


lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:15am:

barney must want us all to move to the manufacturing south eats corner of the continent so we won't have all those nasty transport emissions.

It is not a statement of you DO want. Capiche?


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:19am:

Your post is what's called a strawman fallacy. hardly surprising coming from you.

Yes, Once again barney blames his lack of comprehension on others. ;D ;D ;D ;D

But I did notice you didn't supply any debate about how we could reduce emissions from transport etc. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:32am:

It is not a statement of you DO want. Capiche?

no

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:49am:

lee wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:32am: It is not a statement of you DO want. Capiche? no

Well you see, "must want" says I don't know your thinking. "Do(es) want" says I know your thinking.

So glad to help you understand basic English. ;)

Still no possible solutions to overcome transport emissions etc.

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:07am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 10:23am: What about the sh.t that you export to everywhere else ? Would that make a difference ? The buyers should know all the claims on CO2 rise. They are masters of their own destiny, as we are of ours.

Unfortunately the planet doesn't care about countries and demarcation boarders. When it gets burnt we all suffer the same :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 2:34pm:

Unfortunately the planet doesn't care about countries and demarcation boarders. When it gets burnt we all suffer the same

yes. Which is one reason why emissions per head are so stupid. And Australia is a carbon sink so is sequestering CO2 for China, India, Germany and all the others emitting more than they sequester.

Maybe we should charge for that.

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 2:47pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 2:34pm: Unfortunately the planet doesn't care about countries and demarcation boarders. When it gets burnt we all suffer the same yes. Which is one reason why emissions per head are so stupid. And Australia is a carbon sink so is sequestering CO2 for China, India, Germany and all the others emitting more than they sequester. Maybe we should charge for that.

you are a f.cking doofus. They burn the sh.t we flog to them. How many times does it have to be explained to you ? :(

You might get lucky this christmas and Santa Claus might bring you a brain this year :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 21^st, 2018 at 10:54am:

Just look at the experts from the right crawl out from under their rocks to tell us that the CSIRO is wrong. Of course the LNP knows better with their lumps of coal in one hand and their dicks in the other :D LOL https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-set-for-more-heatwaves-and-fires-as-climate-change-hits-report Quote: Australia set for more heatwaves and fires as climate change hits: report The State of the Climate 2018 report painted a grim picture of Australia's future. Australia's key climate agencies are forecasting a bleak outlook for Australia, with the country increasingly feeling the effects of the world's changing climate. The State of the Climate 2018 report, prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, has warned of more heatwaves and extreme fire weather around Australia as global temperatures continue to rise. Those rises are commonly attributed to an increase in emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, working alongside other variables like the El Nino or La Nina events. Director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO, Dr Helen Cleugh, said CO2 levels were unprecedented. "CO2 in the atmosphere now is at levels that we haven't seen in at least 800,000 years and if we go back to other observations, the science says we probably haven't seen these levels of CO2 concentration for maybe two million years." The weather bureau's manager of climate monitoring Dr Karl Braganza said the latest data revealed Australia's climate had warmed by more than one degree since 1910.

Take a look at the NIGHT SIDE of the planet from space and you will see 'millions' of fires burning brightly and heating up the planet at a time (of night) that it should be regulating its cooling down from the day in the sun's light.
These 'fires' are what so-called 'intelligent' people refer to as 'civilisation'.  ::)

So unless we can create more 'shade' on the day side to compensate and cool that side down in return. Then I think we are well and truly burning a hole in our Life boat.

i wonder why labor premier Anastasia just opened the worlds biggest coal mine.
has she not read the CSIRO report?
now that school is finished and she doesnt have tuck shop duty, she should read it.
can she read ?

Weren't the libs the first not to have a science minister to appease their fossil fuel donors?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:20pm:

you are a f.cking doofus. They burn the sh.t we flog to them. How many times does it have to be explained to you ?

Yes. And when they burn it the emissions belong to them. They always have the option of going renewable only.


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 11:20pm:

You might get lucky this christmas and Santa Claus might bring you a brain this year

Probably yours. I have been reliably informed it is in pristine condition, having never been used.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 6:17am:

i wonder why labor premier Anastasia just opened the worlds biggest coal mine. has she not read the CSIRO report? now that school is finished and she doesnt have tuck shop duty, she should read it. can she read ?

because she is a loser relying on digging sh.t out of the ground and property deals using borrowed money to keep what's left of her fake economy going. This is what happens when you deindustrialize a nation !

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:27am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:20pm: you are a f.cking doofus. They burn the sh.t we flog to them. How many times does it have to be explained to you ? Yes. And when they burn it the emissions belong to them. They always have the option of going renewable only. Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:20pm: You might get lucky this christmas and Santa Claus might bring you a brain this year Probably yours. I have been reliably informed it is in pristine condition, having never been used.

You're an idiot. We all suffer because of their emissions !

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:33am:

lee wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 9:27am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:20pm: you are a f.cking doofus. They burn the sh.t we flog to them. How many times does it have to be explained to you ? Yes. And when they burn it the emissions belong to them. They always have the option of going renewable only. Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 11:20pm: You might get lucky this christmas and Santa Claus might bring you a brain this year Probably yours. I have been reliably informed it is in pristine condition, having never been used. You're an idiot. We all suffer because of their emissions !

So we're saved if we pay billions to wall street and the United Nations.

Doomed if we don't.

When labor gets in and establishes and ETS just like Europe and elsewhere CO2 emissions will increase.

So we're doomed only if we don't become financial slaves.

Don't make sense to me.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:33am:

You're an idiot. We all suffer because of their emissions !

Exactly what are you suffering? incontinence?

Me? I'm healthy. Not suffering at all.

So who are these "all" you are talking about?

But of course we can charge them for sequestering their CO2 if that is what you wish, as I said before.

Give it a break will you. :(

Who are you trying to kid you moreon.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:20pm:

Who are you trying to kid you moreon.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:33am:

We all suffer because of their emissions !

You are the one with the delusions. Alzheimers?

If you have a different view please feel free to expand upon how we "all suffer because of their emissions".

Your claim. Surely you can provide evidence?

I hope it is not something nebulous like more frequent extreme events. You would have to detail what the frequency has increased from say 1910 to now.

Climate change would not happen if America didn't stop the world having free energy from space beams.

http://www.cagle.com/working/071023/moir.jpg

Ajax wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 10:09am:

It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference. https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg

With 200 countries on this planet is they all produced 1.24% the carbon emissions would quadruple or more ?

Over 85% are under 1% they all have the same excuse that it does not matter that you prefer to use for us yet combine all the countries at or below 1.24% and you will find that the overall percentage is huge.

Our 1.24% puts us at about number 13 in the list of high emitters, we are in fact one of the worst.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 8:42am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 10:09am: It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference. https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg With 200 countries on this planet is they all produced 1.24% the carbon emissions would quadruple or more ? Over 85% are under 1% they all have the same excuse that it does not matter that you prefer to use for us yet combine all the countries at or below 1.24% and you will find that the overall percentage is huge. Our 1.24% puts us at about number 13 in the list of high emitters, we are in fact one of the worst.

Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total.

Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total.

So 1.26% of 4% is going to make a difference......???

Wake up and get real FFS.

The amount of atmospheric CO2 has been increasing in line with the Natural emissions of CO2 not what man is throwing up.

This is because we have been warming since the little ice age and as we warm more natural CO2 is thrown up into the atmosphere from natural sinks, which eclipses anything man can do.

And lets not forget the logarithmic affect of CO2 either.

https://i.ibb.co/vHCPyJn/agw11.jpg https://i.ibb.co/sqwVPxL/co2log-JPG.jpg

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:00am:

Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total.

How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant?

The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle.
Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans 

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:00am:

And lets not forget the logarithmic affect of CO2 either.

I've also debunked this piece of emotive nonsense. You failed to explain why this has any relevance to the argument. Who cares if CO₂ warming is logarithmic if it still produces over 2 degrees of global warming

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:24am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant? The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle. Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans

I would agree with you if we were importing fossil fuels from the moon or mars or some other alien planet.

But all we're doing is changing one form of energy into another all substances are from the Earth.

Merry Christmas sugar tits............ :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:24am:

The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption.

That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:24am:

Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans

And the earth. Don't forget the carbon sinks like Australia. ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:27am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: And lets not forget the logarithmic affect of CO2 either. I've also debunked this piece of emotive nonsense. You failed to explain why this has any relevance to the argument. Who cares if CO2 warming is logarithmic if it still produces over 2 degrees of global warming

You've debunked nothing.....!!!

Empirical data for the last 28 years shows a warming of 1°C by the end of this century.

You do know what observations are don't you.

The warming is not in accordance with those silly computer models that in 1990 predicted a warming of 2.78°C by end of this century.

Ala the hiatus and why we have not reached the plateaus in accordance with those silly computer models.

You know what they say about computers right.

Sh1t in sh!t out........... :-*

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:27am:

I've also debunked this piece of emotive nonsense.

have you? previously you have claimed it has been debunked many times. never once have you offered PROOF.

Perhaps this time you will.


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:27am:

Who cares if CO2 warming is logarithmic if it still produces over 2 degrees of global warming

First you have to show it has/will cause over 2 degrees of warming.

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:44am:

Empirical data for the last 28 years shows a warming of 1°C by the end of this century.

But don't forget the early years when the Southern Hemisphere was represented by a total of ONE station; in Indonesia.

The SH is still poorly represented on land, due to the lack; and the SST's had sparse data until the 1950's and even then it wasn't great.

But somehow we should accept the reconstructions back to 1880. ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:41am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant? The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle. Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans  I would agree with you if we were importing fossil fuels from the moon or mars or some other alien planet. But all we're doing is changing one form of energy into another all substances are from the Earth.

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

You do realize that CO₂ buried underground in the form of fossil fuels is completely different to releasing it into the atmosphere.
You have just relieved your complete ignorance on this subject  ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:07am:

You have just relieved your complete ignorance on this subject

WTF does that even mean?

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:41am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant? The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle. Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans  I would agree with you if we were importing fossil fuels from the moon or mars or some other alien planet. But all we're doing is changing one form of energy into another all substances are from the Earth. Merry Christmas sugar tits............ :D

Is this meant to mean something ?

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:43am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time.

In terms of Balance nobody on either side of the discussion seriously discounts the impact of balance.

You are just being your normal disagreeable self expecting people to prove things that you know are true to start with. In this case it is as simple as that if you change the dynamics in play in a system you will drive a change in the outcome.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time.

You mean like a population "balance"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you a Eugenicist? ;)

Ajax wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:00am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 8:42am: Ajax wrote on Dec 23rd, 2018 at 10:09am: It doesn't matter what we do at 1.24% it will hardly make any difference. https://i.ibb.co/rk5sQfM/acfp.jpg With 200 countries on this planet is they all produced 1.24% the carbon emissions would quadruple or more ? Over 85% are under 1% they all have the same excuse that it does not matter that you prefer to use for us yet combine all the countries at or below 1.24% and you will find that the overall percentage is huge. Our 1.24% puts us at about number 13 in the list of high emitters, we are in fact one of the worst. Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. So 1.26% of 4% is going to make a difference......??? Wake up and get real FFS. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has been increasing in line with the Natural emissions of CO2 not what man is throwing up. This is because we have been warming since the little ice age and as we warm more natural CO2 is thrown up into the atmosphere from natural sinks, which eclipses anything man can do. And lets not forget the logarithmic affect of CO2 either. https://i.ibb.co/vHCPyJn/agw11.jpg https://i.ibb.co/sqwVPxL/co2log-JPG.jpg

All we can do is control what we are responsible for.

Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ?

Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia.

Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour.

This is because we have been warming since the little ice age


You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event.

It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere.

The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:31am: Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time. You mean like a population "balance"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you a Eugenicist? ;)

Please do not try to put words in my mouth or make irrelevant diversions.

We all know that there would be some point of population balance and hope we never find it, climate change has the potential to lead to this position.

There would be a point of balance where the planet can produce enough food for less people than we have to survive. One of the primary factors behind the need to take action on climate change and shown or inferred in this report in the projected changes to Australia's climate and the probable results.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:43am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time. In terms of Balance nobody on either side of the discussion seriously discounts the impact of balance. You are just being your normal disagreeable self expecting people to prove things that you know are true to start with. In this case it is as simple as that if you change the dynamics in play in a system you will drive a change in the outcome.

Dnarever is, of course, completely correct.

If we continue down our current path, eventually even those additional human CO2 emissions will reach a balance. The problem will be that the balance will be a far higher concentration than we have today. 

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:46am:

We all know that there would be some point of population balance and hope we never find it, climate change has the potential to lead to this position.

So no population balance yet then. ;)


Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:46am:

There would be a point of balance where the planet can produce enough food for less people than we have to survive.

yes. But that point keeps moving further into the future because of increasing food supply. The main impediment would be transporting those foods using sailing ships (wind power) as opposed to fossil fuels.


Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:46am:

One of the primary factors behind the need to take action on climate change and shown or inferred in this report in the projected changes to Australia's climate and the probable results.

Yes. That report. Did you hear about Ocean PH? Dropping pH levels back to 1870. back when they didn't even know that pH varied daily let alone seasonally. ;)

rainfall? I note they use April to October only not annual rainfall.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/water/perth05.gif

Rainfall back to 1876 - Why limit the graphs? Perth only but Perth water catchment is the largest in that region.

"A team of water experts has identified a correlation between widespread land clearing and a decline in rainfall in Western Australia's South West region. "

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-21/evidence-land-clearing-leads-to-rainfall-reduction-found/5107392

Land clearing is not climate change per se.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:07am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:41am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant? The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle. Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans  I would agree with you if we were importing fossil fuels from the moon or mars or some other alien planet. But all we're doing is changing one form of energy into another all substances are from the Earth. Wow, what an ignorant comment. You do realize that CO2 buried underground in the form of fossil fuels is completely different to releasing it into the atmosphere. You have just relieved your complete ignorance on this subject  ;D ;D ;D

LNP voters are always happy when they can explain things away by being irrational.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:52am:

If we continue down our current path, eventually even those additional human CO2 emissions will reach a balance. The problem will be that the balance will be a far higher concentration than we have today.

A movable balance.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

You have just relieved your complete ignorance on this subject  Grin Grin Grin LNP voters are always happy when they can explain things away by being irrational.

Seeing as you are so sure perhaps you can explain barney's last sentence; he seems coy about it.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 11:52am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:52am: If we continue down our current path, eventually even those additional human CO2 emissions will reach a balance. The problem will be that the balance will be a far higher concentration than we have today.  A movable balance.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wow lee.
Are you deliberately being stupid just to get a bite?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 11:54am:

Are you deliberately being stupid just to get a bite?

Are you really that silly? According to Hansen we currently have an imbalance of 0.58 W/m² caused by CO2.

Please tell us how more CO2 will create a new balance. The only way for that to occur would be to sequestrate more CO2.

Of course the Mass balance does have a mere 17W/m² error band.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:00pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 11:54am: Are you deliberately being stupid just to get a bite? Are you really that silly? According to Hansen we currently have an imbalance of 0.58 W/m2 caused by CO2. Please tell us how more CO2 will create a new balance. The only way for that to occur would be to sequestrate more CO2. Of course the Mass balance does have a mere +/-17W/m2 error band.

Are you as ignorant of the carbon cycle as Ajax? Apparently so
But I'm not going to engage with you as that only feeds the trolls

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Are you as ignorant of the carbon cycle as Ajax? Apparently so

You are the one ignoring the "Climate Seance" as per Hansen. Why is that? It shows you up as not knowing about the carbon budget measured in fluxes.

"This level of detail cannot be inferred directly from measurements of surface energy fluxes, which have combined uncertainties of the order of ± 17 W/m².[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

Reference 15 -  Stephens, Graeme L.; Li, Juilin; Wild, Martin; Clayson, Carol Anne; Loeb, Norman; Kato, Seiji; L'Ecuyer, Tristan; Stackhouse Jr., Paul W.; Lebsock, Matthew (2012-10-01). "An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations". Nature Geoscience. 5 (10): 691–696. Bibcode:2012NatGe...5..691S. doi:10.1038/ngeo1580. ISSN 1752-0894.


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

But I'm not going to engage with you as that only feeds the trolls

yes. you continually run away and hide.

And the CSIRO doesn't know any of this :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:36pm:

And the CSIRO doesn't know any of this

If you say so.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:41pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 12:36pm: And the CSIRO doesn't know any of this If you say so.

When it all comes down to it who are you going to believe ? Trump or the CSIRO ? :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 2:24pm:

When it all comes down to it who are you going to believe ? Trump or the CSIRO ?

Why should I trust either.

The CSIRO report has some deficiencies as I have noted. Trump is not any type of scientist. Just like Al Gore. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 2:33pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 2:24pm: When it all comes down to it who are you going to believe ? Trump or the CSIRO ? Why should I trust either. The CSIRO report has some deficiencies as I have noted. Trump is not any type of scientist. Just like Al Gore. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You trust Trump. He doesn't believe it and neither do you :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

You trust Trump.

Another assertion without proof. you are really good at that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

He doesn't believe it and neither do you

What don't I believe petal?

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 11:52am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:52am: If we continue down our current path, eventually even those additional human CO2 emissions will reach a balance. The problem will be that the balance will be a far higher concentration than we have today.  A movable balance.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes dependant on the many variables there are a lot of points where the equation could potentially come into balance. Many of those points of balance would not support human life.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 8:33pm:

Yes dependant on the many variables there are a lot of points where the equation could potentially come into balance. Many of those points of balance would not support human life.

yes. Good try. So we have CO2 not being in balance but could be in balance, water vapour postulated by many not to being balance at any one time because it rains out, clouds not being in balance because they vary so widely, and yes I know clouds are water vapour but they have a different effect. And the climate models don't do clouds well.


But that is a very good conclusion on why the models aren't good. And also the predictions on climate change.

So perhaps you could expand on these number of points,and the assumptions (guesses) on which they rely. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 3:41pm: You trust Trump. Another assertion without proof. you are really good at that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 3:41pm: He doesn't believe it and neither do you What don't I believe petal?

You and trump believe the same thing. Stop denying it !

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:07pm:

You and trump believe the same thing. Stop denying it !

I am merely asking for for clarification on what I believe.

You tell me you know. So I guess you must be able to enunciate it. Don't be shy. Tell us what you know. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:07pm: You and trump believe the same thing. Stop denying it ! I am merely asking for for clarification on what I believe. You tell me you know. So I guess you must be able to enunciate it. Don't be shy. Tell us what you know. ;)

bugger your out of context pseudo science. I'm not here to waste my time with that.

Do you deny that you and Trump believe in the same thing ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Do you deny that you and Trump believe in the same thing ?

What exactly do I believe? You are making the claim. Back it up.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:06pm: Do you deny that you and Trump believe in the same thing ? What exactly do I believe? You are making the claim. Back it up.

Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump on this issue ?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:07am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:41am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: Ajax wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:00am: Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total. Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total. How many times do I need to explain how wrong you are Ajax? Are you deliberately being ignorant? The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It's called the carbon cycle. Human emissions on the other hand are ADDITIONAL, and they mostly accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans  I would agree with you if we were importing fossil fuels from the moon or mars or some other alien planet. But all we're doing is changing one form of energy into another all substances are from the Earth. Wow, what an ignorant comment. You do realize that CO2 buried underground in the form of fossil fuels is completely different to releasing it into the atmosphere. You have just relieved your complete ignorance on this subject  ;D ;D ;D

Like I said Barny if we imported fossil fuels from alien planets I could agree with you.

Fossil fuels underground were are part of the atmosphere at one time or another and are of this Earth.

They're just being recycled nothing new is being introduced that wasn't a part of the atmosphere at one time or another.

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:25am:

Like I said Barny if we imported fossil fuels from alien planets I could agree with you. Fossil fuels underground were are part of the atmosphere at one time or another and are of this Earth. They're just being recycled nothing new is being introduced that wasn't a part of the atmosphere at one time or another.

Wow Ajax.
No wonder you have no idea about the science of AGW and you are so easily sucked in by denialist bloggers.
Whether the CO₂ is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference.
I'm quite astonished that you can't see that

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:43am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time. In terms of Balance nobody on either side of the discussion seriously discounts the impact of balance. You are just being your normal disagreeable self expecting people to prove things that you know are true to start with. In this case it is as simple as that if you change the dynamics in play in a system you will drive a change in the outcome.

Your argument that the human effect will destroy us is shot down by the fact that yearly rate of atmospheric CO2 increase in the atmosphere is accumulating in accordance with NATURAL CO2 EMISSIONS due to the fact that we have been warming since the little ice age..... ;)

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:39am:

All we can do is control what we are responsible for. Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ? Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia. Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour. This is because we have been warming since the little ice age You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event. It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere. The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause.

You better stick to whatever your doing cause you wont make a scientists left finger nail.

So you want to spend billions of dollars trying to keep the climate stable and at a status quo by controlling 1.26% of 4% my goodness mate do you realise how STUPID that is.

Can man really control the cycles of the Earth and the sun......????

The Medieval warm period was global, stop quoting Mann and his cronies to justify a lie.

You believe in science by consensus well then here you go.

You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science.... :D


Quote:

‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:31am: lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:43am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time. In terms of Balance nobody on either side of the discussion seriously discounts the impact of balance. You are just being your normal disagreeable self expecting people to prove things that you know are true to start with. In this case it is as simple as that if you change the dynamics in play in a system you will drive a change in the outcome. Dnarever is, of course, completely correct. If we continue down our current path, eventually even those additional human CO2 emissions will reach a balance. The problem will be that the balance will be a far higher concentration than we have today.

Lee is correct only humans seek balance.

Nature and climate do whatever they have to do.

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:31am: lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:43am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 9:24am: The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. That great human construct "balance". balanced lifestyle, balanced diet, the balance of the scales of justice. Please show where in nature it has been shown that things have to be in "balance". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Things tend to reach for a balance in nature, this occurs with clime as well. Natural changes tend to occur over millennia. The Human induced event will see the same type of change in a very short comparative period of time. In terms of Balance nobody on either side of the discussion seriously discounts the impact of balance. You are just being your normal disagreeable self expecting people to prove things that you know are true to start with. In this case it is as simple as that if you change the dynamics in play in a system you will drive a change in the outcome. Your argument that the human effect will destroy us is shot down by the fact that yearly rate of atmospheric CO2 increase in the atmosphere is accumulating in accordance with NATURAL CO2 EMISSIONS due to the fact that we have been warming since the little ice age..... ;)

You said that before but never supported you claim or contended with the fact that the Industrial revolution probably accounted for temp rising. i.e. we were putting co2 into the atmosphere in this period. The little ice age was only a localised event - not an ice age really.

Had the warming trend been associated with an impact of the little ice age you would believe that temp would rise to pre little ice age levels and not many times greater as we have now.

If you want to argue that Co2 is increasing because temp is increasing and not the other way around what do you base this belief on.

Note: science is pretty much unanimous on the point that greenhouse gasses cause warming - even the climate change sceptics know that this is true.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 12:36pm:

And the CSIRO doesn't know any of this :D LOL

They're on the gravy train aren't they....???

Say yes and be funded.....!!!

So no and lose your job....!!!

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:31am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:25am: Like I said Barny if we imported fossil fuels from alien planets I could agree with you. Fossil fuels underground were are part of the atmosphere at one time or another and are of this Earth. They're just being recycled nothing new is being introduced that wasn't a part of the atmosphere at one time or another. Wow Ajax. No wonder you have no idea about the science of AGW and you are so easily sucked in by denialist bloggers. Whether the CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference. I'm quite astonished that you can't see that

Like I said all ingredients are of this Earth and formed some part of the atmosphere.

The re-cycling is part of Earth's carbon cycle.

Nothing new has been introduced.

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:39am: All we can do is control what we are responsible for. Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ? Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia. Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour. This is because we have been warming since the little ice age You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event. It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere. The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause. You better stick to whatever your doing cause you wont make a scientists left finger nail. So you want to spend billions of dollars trying to keep the climate stable and at a status quo by controlling 1.26% of 4% my goodness mate do you realise how STUPID that is. Can man really control the cycles of the Earth and the sun......???? The Medieval warm period was global, stop quoting Mann and his cronies to justify a lie. You believe in science by consensus well then here you go. You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science.... :D Quote: ‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

This is how your refereed award winning website rates ?


2012  Morano was named the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:46am:

You said that before but never supported you claim or contended with the fact that the Industrial revolution probably accounted for temp rising. i.e. we were putting co2 into the atmosphere in this period. The little ice age was only a localised event - not an ice age really. Had the warming trend been associated with an impact of the little ice age you would believe that temp would rise to pre little ice age levels and not many times greater as we have now. If you want to argue that Co2 is increasing because temp is increasing and not the other way around what do you base this belief on. Note: science is pretty much unanimous on the point that greenhouse gasses cause warming - even the climate change sceptics know that this is true.

My friend your arrogance precedes your ignorance the chart has been posted for you to see, go back and have a look, atmospheric CO2 yearly increases fall in line with Earth heating up and natural sinks emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The trend doesn't follow mans emissions which are too small to make any difference.

NO medieval warm period was GLOBAL and your arrogance precedes your ignorance.

The Medieval warm period was global.

You believe in science by consensus well then here you go.

You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science.... :D


Quote:

‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:51am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:31am: Ajax wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:25am: Like I said Barny if we imported fossil fuels from alien planets I could agree with you. Fossil fuels underground were are part of the atmosphere at one time or another and are of this Earth. They're just being recycled nothing new is being introduced that wasn't a part of the atmosphere at one time or another. Wow Ajax. No wonder you have no idea about the science of AGW and you are so easily sucked in by denialist bloggers. Whether the CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference. I'm quite astonished that you can't see that Like I said all ingredients are of this Earth and formed some part of the atmosphere. The re-cycling is part of Earth's carbon cycle. Nothing new has been introduced.

Someone else pointed out how embarrassing this claim is.

A rather large portion of dormant Co2 has been added to the active system. That is an amount of Co2 that was having no impact on climate now is, this is happening because we released it into the system.

Over time this could happen naturally but this time it didn't we are responsible.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:54am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:42am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 10:39am: All we can do is control what we are responsible for. Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ? Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia. Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour. This is because we have been warming since the little ice age You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event. It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere. The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause. You better stick to whatever your doing cause you wont make a scientists left finger nail. So you want to spend billions of dollars trying to keep the climate stable and at a status quo by controlling 1.26% of 4% my goodness mate do you realise how STUPID that is. Can man really control the cycles of the Earth and the sun......???? The Medieval warm period was global, stop quoting Mann and his cronies to justify a lie. You believe in science by consensus well then here you go. You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science.... :D Quote: ‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/ This is how your refereed award winning website rates ? 2012  Morano was named the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

He was was he,

Morano is a presenter he finds the information and makes it available so sheep like yourself might awaken from their slumber.

And what shall we say about John Cook over at sceptical science who tried to deceive the whole world by claiming 97% of scientists in that paper he wrote.

Turned out from over 1000 papers only 67 totally agreed with AGW.

What have you to say about that.   

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 10:00am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:51am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:31am: Ajax wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:25am: Like I said Barny if we imported fossil fuels from alien planets I could agree with you. Fossil fuels underground were are part of the atmosphere at one time or another and are of this Earth. They're just being recycled nothing new is being introduced that wasn't a part of the atmosphere at one time or another. Wow Ajax. No wonder you have no idea about the science of AGW and you are so easily sucked in by denialist bloggers. Whether the CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference. I'm quite astonished that you can't see that Like I said all ingredients are of this Earth and formed some part of the atmosphere. The re-cycling is part of Earth's carbon cycle. Nothing new has been introduced. Someone else pointed out how embarrassing this claim is. A rather large portion of dormant Co2 has been added to the active system. That is an amount of Co2 that was having no impact on climate now is, this is happening because we released it into the system. Over time this could happen naturally but this time it didn't we are responsible.

Explain to me why its embarrassing and if your argument if logical I will consider it.

And if the sun develops a few measles and farts on the earth warming us up how much CO2 CAN be released from the oceans and the terra firma.... :D

Kinda makes wasting billions on trying to maintain a status quo RIDICULUS......!!!!

Don't you think.....????

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25^th, 2018 at 11:20pm:

Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump on this issue ?

You have made claims I agree with DT on something. You haven't enunciated on what it is I believe.

Until you can enunciate what it is you believe that I believe - I will ignore you. You are just trolling.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:31am:

Whether the CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference.

Perhaps you can tell us at what pressure or what temperature CO2 forms a solid under the ground. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 10:42am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 25th, 2018 at 11:20pm: Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump on this issue ? You have made claims I agree with DT on something. You haven't enunciated on what it is I believe. Until you can enunciate what it is you believe that I believe - I will ignore you. You are just trolling.

Lastnail. You should know by now that lee never states his position on anything. It is a tactic used so he can perform his backflips and other verbal gymnastics

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:31am: Whether the CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere or a solid buried underground makes a MASSIVE difference. Perhaps you can tell us at what pressure or what temperature CO2 forms a solid under the ground. ;)

Perhaps you can tells us the different states that CO₂ can be in  ;)

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:54am:

2012  Morano was named the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

Ooh how scary.

Who was it who said that? A quick search reveals it was MediaMatters. Hardly something with a science bent.

"At the end of 2012, Media Matters for America, a politically left leaning media watchdog, named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year."[11]

[11] Fitzsimmons, Jill; Theel, Shauna (December 27, 2012). "Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano". Media Matters for America. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

"Climatologist Michael E. Mann has criticized Morano."

ibid

That would have to be a plus. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:46am:

Had the warming trend been associated with an impact of the little ice age you would believe that temp would rise to pre little ice age levels and not many times greater as we have now.

Can you show where the current warming is "many times greater" than the MWP? The MWP is inarguably pre-little ice age. ;)

So lee you basically believe that there are no environmental consequences to setting fire to all of the remaining fossil fools on the planet ?

Another consensus...... :-*

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

https://i.ibb.co/hRfg0B4/lia.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/10dtx0o.jpg


Quote:

Saturday, 18 April 2009     CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD Another inconvenient truth for warmists. New research suggests that the co2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today. First lets look at a paper that shaped the modern view of past co2 levels. 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, published in the prestigous Journal "Energy and Environment" by Dr Ernst-Georg Beck. http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm The paper is also covered in the media: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855 Below I have reproduced some of the data from this study for the purpose of scientific analysis. This data shows that co2 levels were much higher than today in 1940 and 1827: http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html

https://i.ibb.co/K55ccDj/MWP01.jpg https://i.ibb.co/cc5zMn3/scin.jpg

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 11:29am:

So lee you basically believe that there are no environmental consequences to setting fire to all of the remaining fossil fools on the planet ?

Oh dear. having failed to establish what I believe you ingenuously make stuff up? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Another consensus.....!!!!

You guys only believe in consensus right.

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2

Raspopov et al 2013
Turner et al 2014
Misios and Schmidt 2014
Gray et al. 2014 
Florides et al. 2013
Patterson et al. 2013 
Steinhilber and Beer 2013 
Miyake et al. 2013 
Gil-Alana et al. 2013
Laken and Calogovic 2013 
de Jager and Nieuwenhuijzen 2013
Wirth et al. 2013
Phipps et al. 2013
Burn and Palmer 2013
Magny et al. 2013
Roth and Joos 2013
Lockwood 2013
Scafetta 2013
Love, 2013
Roy 2013
Scafetta 2013
van Geel and Ziegler 2013
Anet et al. 2013
El Bilali et al. 2013
Schultz 2013 
Galloway et al. 2013
NAS 2012 
Wen et al. 2013
Gómez-Navarro and Zorita 2013 
Lu, 2012.
Asmerom et al. 2013
Stolze et al. 2013 
Van Oldenborgh et al. 2013
Matthes et al. 2013
Meehl et al. 2013
YuXin et al. 2013
Usoskin et al. 2013
Thomas et. El. 2013
Jackson and Foster 2013
Kobashi et al. 2013
Stolze et al. 2013
Hervé et al. in press 
Frezotti et al. 2013
Nagaya et al. 2012
Gu et al. 2012
Di Rita 2013
Patterson et al. in press
Heredia and Elias 2013
Charbonneau 2013
Tung and Zhou 2013
Kern et al. 2013
Chen et al. 2013 
Wang & Su 2013 
Clete and Lefevre 2012
Dietrich et al. 2013 
Bleicher, 2013
Scaife et al. 2013
Bochnicek et al. 2012
Czymzik et al. 2013

https://i.ibb.co/hg53s3z/sunspots1.jpg

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 11:29am: So lee you basically believe that there are no environmental consequences to setting fire to all of the remaining fossil fools on the planet ? Oh dear. having failed to establish what I believe you ingenuously make stuff up? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

so what is it then ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 12:36pm:

so what is it then ?

What is what petal? You clearly enunciated what question you are asking. Do I agree with DT? Don't know enough about what he believes.

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 12:36pm: so what is it then ? What is what petal? You clearly enunciated what question you are asking. Do I agree with DT? Don't know enough about what he believes.

Tell us what it is that you believe on this issue ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

Tell us what it is that you believe on this issue ?

What issue petal? DT penchant for arse grabbing? DT and his taxes? DT and the border wall?

You were talking about me being in agreement with DT. ;)

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 9:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:46am: You said that before but never supported you claim or contended with the fact that the Industrial revolution probably accounted for temp rising. i.e. we were putting co2 into the atmosphere in this period. The little ice age was only a localised event - not an ice age really. Had the warming trend been associated with an impact of the little ice age you would believe that temp would rise to pre little ice age levels and not many times greater as we have now. If you want to argue that Co2 is increasing because temp is increasing and not the other way around what do you base this belief on. Note: science is pretty much unanimous on the point that greenhouse gasses cause warming - even the climate change sceptics know that this is true. My friend your arrogance precedes your ignorance the chart has been posted for you to see, go back and have a look, atmospheric CO2 yearly increases fall in line with Earth heating up and natural sinks emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere. The trend doesn't follow mans emissions which are too small to make any difference. NO medieval warm period was GLOBAL and your arrogance precedes your ignorance. The Medieval warm period was global. You believe in science by consensus well then here you go. You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science.... :D Quote: ‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

You know that this site is a clearing house for information, not even the owner agrees with a lot of what is presented on the site?

You put a lot of focus on the medieval period being real when it is in fact in significant doubt, either way it likely has not a lot to do with global warming.
In a nut shell there was once close to consensus that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were both localised events, there were good reasons for this belief at the time.

More recently there has been evidence that there were warm and cool periods in the southern hemisphere as well as the northern. This has tended to swing the argument back to a position that they may have been global events.

The problem that still exists is that the time lines for these events seem to have been different. i.e the warn and cool periods in the northern hemisphere did not occur at the same time as in the south. This puts a question make back on the whole topic. However the causes are known and irrelevant to what we see today. Just more mud in the water to distract from the science.

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 11:41am:

http://i58.tinypic.com/10dtx0o.jpg Quote: Saturday, 18 April 2009     CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD Another inconvenient truth for warmists. New research suggests that the co2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today. First lets look at a paper that shaped the modern view of past co2 levels. 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, published in the prestigous Journal "Energy and Environment" by Dr Ernst-Georg Beck. http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm The paper is also covered in the media: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855 Below I have reproduced some of the data from this study for the purpose of scientific analysis. This data shows that co2 levels were much higher than today in 1940 and 1827: http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html https://i.ibb.co/K55ccDj/MWP01.jpg https://i.ibb.co/cc5zMn3/scin.jpg

Do you think that if any of this were true that it would have found its way to a credible source by now?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 3:21pm:

You put a lot of focus on the medieval period being real when it is in fact in significant doubt, either way it likely has not a lot to do with global warming.

So you say it wasn't global warming? It was what global cooling? Global stasis?


Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 3:21pm:

The problem that still exists is that the time lines for these events seem to have been different. i.e the warn and cool periods in the northern hemisphere did not occur at the same time as in the south. This puts a question make back on the whole topic.

You mean like the melting Arctic and the non-melting Antarctic?

Or at least at different rates - despite it being global warming?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Do you think that if any of this were true that it would have found its way to a credible source by now?

Or been definitively debunked. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 4:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 3:26pm: Do you think that if any of this were true that it would have found its way to a credible source by now? Or been definitively debunked. ;)

Much of it has been.

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 10:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 9:46am: Had the warming trend been associated with an impact of the little ice age you would believe that temp would rise to pre little ice age levels and not many times greater as we have now. Can you show where the current warming is "many times greater" than the MWP? The MWP is inarguably pre-little ice age. ;)

The higher temperatures during the medieval warm period were isolated and other areas were cooler, the overall global result was lower temperatures than we have today.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 6:30pm:

lee wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 4:10pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2018 at 3:26pm: Do you think that if any of this were true that it would have found its way to a credible source by now? Or been definitively debunked. ;) Much of it has been.

Show me where and who....???

You can never stop filling the holes of the AGW religion.

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  (year 1990) projected warming………............+2.78° C / end of this Century

Observations the last 28 years project a warming of………………………….. +1.01° C / end of this Century

http://i66.tinypic.com/hrwj9c.png

The Essence of Science in 60 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

https://i.ibb.co/K55ccDj/MWP01.jpg https://i.ibb.co/cc5zMn3/scin.jpg

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

The higher temperatures during the medieval warm period were isolated and other areas were cooler,

You mean they weren't global? despite many papers saying contrary? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes. Even now with "AGW " some areas are cooler. Did you read about CO2 causing cooler temperatures in Antarctica? ;)

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2018 at 6:30pm:

Much of it has been.

And no links? Why am I not surprised? ;)