freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 9:49am:


Once last thought FD why should we trust these people who in 1970 said that the Earth would freeze over by 2000 which was bullsh!t.....!

These very same people who wanted to drop gigatonnes of carbon on the arctic to stop it from melting in 1920 & 1940 (what would have happened to those cuddly polar bears) if they did that.

And now their telling us we're going to fry....bullsh!t.....!

You know that motto if it aint broke don’t try to fix it, makes sense to me.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%

May 1947 - arctic melting

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&sea...

November 1922 - arctic melting

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Ajax wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 10:14am:


You show little understanding of what this means. The cooler period has already been in force and to some extent moderated the impact of global warming. This was originally called the pause.

All that this does is to give us some time to act. You seem to fail to realise that the opposite is also part of the cycle - a warmer period.

Even with the cooling periods we have experienced Temps have not gone down, this is because we are looking at Global warming + a cooler period. What do you think happens when we have global warming + a warmer period ?

Dnarever wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 10:58am:


Well D I guess you’re right, no one can claim to understand climate science in its entirety, I certainly don’t and I don’t think there would be many people including you on this forum that could raise their hand for that one.

What I do understand is that the new grand minimum which I agree has begun since about 2008 has knocked the predictions of the United Nations IPCC computer models in 1990 out of the grand stand and straight into the rubbish bin.

You either have a warming or a cooling period you cannot have both simultaneously and as we know the IPCC claims that all the current warming is due to man’s emissions of CO2 which is so childish and naïve, climate science is way more complicated than that, the more you delve into it the more this becomes apparent.

Again I agree that we don’t really know what the temperature in the near future will do but a good starting point would be to see what the sun will be doing over the next one hundred years then if you can factor in all the other variables you could get some idea, good luck with that one.

Here is one prediction by solar scientist and part-time NSA operative Leif Svalgaard, he predicts the sun’s activity will be very low for the next one hundred years, so far he’s done a good job of it.



https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leif-svalgaard-reveals-his-solar-cycl...

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 12:00pm:


Global warming and global cooling have been happening since day dot.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is also true, we do contribute some small amount of CO2 into the atmosphere by changing one form of energy into another, but its nothing that will destroy us or change the environment.

And you're wrong about the big oil boys they have jumped on the gravy train and fully support a carbon derivatives market on the stock exchange, Shell, Mobil etc.

I don't know about the Kotch brothers maybe Marla can inform us if they have also jumped on the gravy train.

WHY...you ask......???

I don't know how this could benefit them (Shell, Mobil etc)but they seem to like the idea of trading carbon derivatives, bottom line is they can probably make some money for nothing, if anyone knows how please tell.....

And don't forget all the banks are in on this carbon derivatives trading, they are spending billions promoting it so imagine how much they will gain from it.

Karnal do you really think that if we were in danger of extinction because of our actions over the next 50 years the best solution would be to pay for the CO2 that you emit on the stock exchange.

You can still emit CO2,

If you pay for the emission there is no danger,

If you don't pay for the emissions we're all doomed to fry.............LOL.........

I would have thought the best possible solution would be to have no electricity no electronics, no cars trains trams.

WHEN

RIGHT NOW......!!!!!

That's a more realistic approach.....

At least everyone would have a job and the worlds population would sky rocket.......

Dnarever wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 12:48pm:


The models are primitive and cannot predict much more than a seven day forecast.

Quote:


Hold on to your knickerbockers mate there's always a lag of sorts, just wait till we get hail the size of soccer balls, I suppose you will still be preaching global warming.....

Quote:


Man's influence is minimal when it comes to AGW.

Now about cleaning pollution up I'm all for it.

Ajax wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 12:30pm:


Then we agree. It's certainly happening. No one's saying it'll cause extinction of OUR species, Ajax, but a number of species are certainly in the way out.

I don't know about the carbon market. The only solution I have is a generational transition to renewables - like Germany and California. I believe we'll see this in China and India in the next generation.

Far from giving up electricity and transport, they've never used more of it. In China, everybody in the cities pays with mobile phones. They travel on electric scooters.

Germany, California and China all have carbon pricing, but more than that, they're had generational change in the way they think about energy and pollution.

I don't know about the best way to get there, but I'm glad we agree on the destination.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 6^th, 2019 at 10:54pm:



The number at the 95% confidence level is about 43%.