War in Australia (any Oz Politics)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,076
Why to the Global Warming clique insist on using data gathered over the last 200 years when accurate instruments and reliable reporting personnel have only been around for about 50-60 years?
In my rotary days I would often land on a rig and have to shut down for a while, after the obligatory massive meal, better than anything onshore, I would go to the geologists shed and the geologists would show a variety of core samples taken from the earths crust that not only showed the state of the well being drilled but gave a complete history of what had happened on the earths surface for several hundred years previously, including droughts, fires, floods etc. and was cyclical and we are in such a cycle now. The combined effects of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim, Iceland etc. plus the annual bush fires of Australia and California totally negate man's efforts to reduce green houses gases in the atmosphere. Maybe Little Greta should start talking to the geological fraternity instead of being a toy of the Al Gore mob who are determined to fabricate a case for increasing government revenue by taxation, not to mention their own personal wealth.
In my rotary days I would often land on a rig and have to shut down for a while, after the obligatory massive meal, better than anything onshore, I would go to the geologists shed and the geologists would show a variety of core samples taken from the earths crust that not only showed the state of the well being drilled but gave a complete history of what had happened on the earths surface for several hundred years previously, including droughts, fires, floods etc. and was cyclical and we are in such a cycle now. The combined effects of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim, Iceland etc. plus the annual bush fires of Australia and California totally negate man's efforts to reduce green houses gases in the atmosphere. Maybe Little Greta should start talking to the geological fraternity instead of being a toy of the Al Gore mob who are determined to fabricate a case for increasing government revenue by taxation, not to mention their own personal wealth.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by parabellum
The combined effects of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim, Iceland etc. plus the annual bush fires of Australia and California totally negate man's efforts to reduce green houses gases in the atmosphere.
----copy pasted from an earlier discussion on this topic, but still relevant ----
Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.
Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".
The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.
------------------------
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by parabellum
Maybe Little Greta should start talking to the geological fraternity
Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s. If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change poses risks to people and ecosystems by exacerbating existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and societal threats, and generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the temperature increases
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by De_flieger
People keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it true.
----copy pasted from an earlier discussion on this topic, but still relevant ----
Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.
Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".
The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.
------------------------
----copy pasted from an earlier discussion on this topic, but still relevant ----
Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.
Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".
The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.
------------------------
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by WingNut60
It isn't so much what we do, it's how many of us are doing it.
I am not a climate scientist (nor is Jennifer Marohasy, Tim Flannery or Al Gore for that matter). But I know two things:
- the idea that scientists worldwide would collaborate in some conspiracy to distort the truth is ludicrous. How would that work?
-on any technical issue there will almost always be some people who interpret data differently, whether it’s a medical issue (eg vaccines) or a science issue (eg Big Bang theory).
So like most reasonable people who aren’t experts, we go with the scientific CONSENSUS, which in this case is strongly for anthropogenic global warming.
Except, it seems, with climate change. A couple hours on Google, everyone’s an expert.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 178
dr dre, der fleiger, JustinHeywood and other climate change educators
The following gives an indication of what you're up against attempting to have people re-consider their views on climate change.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-nine-years-on
In brief, some years ago SBS hosted an Insight program on Climate Change with an audience of climate sceptics / deniers able to question a climatologist.
Nine years on some members of that audience were approached to see if their opinions had changed. None of the four quoted have changed their views.
One is reported as saying “I’m still 100 per cent certain of this [the world cooling itself] and the difference between the environmental scientists and real scientists is very wide. Because environmental scientists look for the funding from the government and the real scientists work for CSIRO …” and “I’m still not convinced any data exists that there is global warming …”
It would appear he hasn’t even looked at the CSIRO web site let alone read any of the reports published by the 'real scientists' on their climate research or potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
The following gives an indication of what you're up against attempting to have people re-consider their views on climate change.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-nine-years-on
In brief, some years ago SBS hosted an Insight program on Climate Change with an audience of climate sceptics / deniers able to question a climatologist.
Nine years on some members of that audience were approached to see if their opinions had changed. None of the four quoted have changed their views.
One is reported as saying “I’m still 100 per cent certain of this [the world cooling itself] and the difference between the environmental scientists and real scientists is very wide. Because environmental scientists look for the funding from the government and the real scientists work for CSIRO …” and “I’m still not convinced any data exists that there is global warming …”
It would appear he hasn’t even looked at the CSIRO web site let alone read any of the reports published by the 'real scientists' on their climate research or potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 53
Posts: 464
“Why to the Global Warming clique....”
Lets take a look at the global warming clique in the US
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Association
American Physical Society
Geological Society of America
US National Academy of Sciences
NASA
NOAA
US Department of Defense
US Global Research Program
All of these bodies have arrived at a consensus supporting the argument that climate change is real and caused primarily by humans.
Thats quite a clique wouldn’t you agree.
“......200 years when accurate instruments and reliable reporting personnel have only been around for about 50-60 years?”
Please tell me I am misreading this part of your argument. Accurate climate change data sets go back just a tad further than 200 years.
Lets take a look at the global warming clique in the US
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Association
American Physical Society
Geological Society of America
US National Academy of Sciences
NASA
NOAA
US Department of Defense
US Global Research Program
All of these bodies have arrived at a consensus supporting the argument that climate change is real and caused primarily by humans.
Thats quite a clique wouldn’t you agree.
“......200 years when accurate instruments and reliable reporting personnel have only been around for about 50-60 years?”
Please tell me I am misreading this part of your argument. Accurate climate change data sets go back just a tad further than 200 years.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Alarm fatigue.
Someone recently thoroughly debunked the "Ice Age was Coming in the Seventies" thing to me. Scientifically.
Trouble is, that is what the media (print and screen) was pushing in the seventies. I was there to see it. He was not.
20 feet of sea level rise by now, said Mr Gore. Yeah yeah.
This particular rain forest has never burnt before. Ever. Well, not since 1952, turns out.
So, given what has gone before, it is somewhat easy to understand the sceptical position many take.
Someone recently thoroughly debunked the "Ice Age was Coming in the Seventies" thing to me. Scientifically.
Trouble is, that is what the media (print and screen) was pushing in the seventies. I was there to see it. He was not.
20 feet of sea level rise by now, said Mr Gore. Yeah yeah.
This particular rain forest has never burnt before. Ever. Well, not since 1952, turns out.
So, given what has gone before, it is somewhat easy to understand the sceptical position many take.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,702
The global warming sect have done themselves a vast disservice by their apoplectic predictions which have not come to pass, little wonder there are those who look upon their pronouncements with a fair measure of scepticism.
Since man harnessed the use of fire we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, WingNut has the nub of the problem, overpopulation, there are now far too many of us desecrating the earth, denuding it of all flora and fauna and leaving our waste in its place, any farmer would be doing something about destocking.
It isn't so much what we do, it's how many of us are doing it
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by esa-aardvark
Have a look for :-
An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues
An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues
Wow.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by megan
Since man harnessed the use of fire we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, WingNut has the nub of the problem, overpopulation, there are now far too many of us desecrating the earth, denuding it of all flora and fauna and leaving our waste in its place, any farmer would be doing something about destocking.
- driving every time or nearly every time you have to travel somewhere
- eating meat or dairy at least once, if not twice a day (one of the greatest contributors to deforestation worldwide)
- eating commercially caught seafood
- purchasing goods that are manufactured in developing countries
- consuming processed foods and cosmetics that contain palm oil and its derivatives
- replacing something that can be repaired
If even half the people on Earth lived like we do, I doubt my kids let alone my grandkids would live without seeing the total collapse of our ecosystems.
So is the answer to expect everyone in the first world to spontaneously choose to live a less comfortable life? Or enforce stronger environmental regulations, that disincentivise the outsourcing of environmental impacts to developing nations where they care more about having food for this week than preserving littoral rainforest?
Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels? Not a great place to start in my view, considering that if we want to minimise human suffering through such a process, it would make sense to start with the heaviest per-capita polluters first.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by chuboy
..
Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels? ........
Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels? ........
We could make a start but nature will do it anyway, given time.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by esa-aardvark
Have a look for :-
An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues
An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues
"(His) naive claims of alternative causes of global warming do not consider the relevant laws of physics and do not make sense" - Climatology professor at UNSW
"unwilling to admit his obvious and indisputable errors"
"Their conclusions....are not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper" - 9 actual climate scientists.
"the claim that this falsifies IPCC findings is wrong." - ANU Climatology professor.
"This thesis makes little attempt to quantify the uncertainties ... It has been left to others to quantify the impact." - the author's own words. He wrote a whole PhD that, by his own admission, is nothing more than an overly long blog post critiquing (without scientific basis) the work of others but drawing no conclusions himself.
Last edited by dr dre; 26th Dec 2019 at 02:56.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,702
Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
I think, dr dre, you may have touched on one of the major problems with this debate.
The work in question, is merely an audit of data. Some of which is obviously erroneous.
And the only conclusion drawn, is that some are erroneous. What anyone does with that information is up to them, indeed outside the scope of the study.
What is more telling is the response.
Of the 5 links you/ Media Watch has provided, 3 refer to a different piece of work. One to criticism of an opinion not of the author. And one to the work itself.
The work does not claim the erroneous data results in any breakthrough regards climate debate (other than the surprising revelation that the data had not been previously audited), only that there are some questionable data present.
Indeed, one would wonder why subzero temperatures recorded in equatorial regions of the Pacific Islands and suchlike had not attracted attention earlier.
The discovery of said errors and potential for homogenisation with the rest of the data set can only improve the science for all concerned.
And yet, here we are.
The work in question, is merely an audit of data. Some of which is obviously erroneous.
And the only conclusion drawn, is that some are erroneous. What anyone does with that information is up to them, indeed outside the scope of the study.
What is more telling is the response.
Of the 5 links you/ Media Watch has provided, 3 refer to a different piece of work. One to criticism of an opinion not of the author. And one to the work itself.
The work does not claim the erroneous data results in any breakthrough regards climate debate (other than the surprising revelation that the data had not been previously audited), only that there are some questionable data present.
Indeed, one would wonder why subzero temperatures recorded in equatorial regions of the Pacific Islands and suchlike had not attracted attention earlier.
The discovery of said errors and potential for homogenisation with the rest of the data set can only improve the science for all concerned.
And yet, here we are.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by currawong
The work does not claim the erroneous data results in any breakthrough regards climate debate (other than the surprising revelation that the data had not been previously audited), only that there are some questionable data present.
However none of these "studies" that have been produced by skeptics that supposedly "destroy" the climate argument have altered the consensus view to a point where any reputable scientific organisation has retracted a statement of support of the consensus view of human induced climate change.
In fact if the aforementioned study helps clear up gaps but causes no change to the overwhelming view of scientists then it strengthens the consensus.
Last edited by dr dre; 26th Dec 2019 at 09:55.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,990
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-appeal-upheld
George Pell: Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction
Pell will be freed immediately after the high court’s decision that his appeal should be upheld, as there was ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’
George Pell: Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction
Pell will be freed immediately after the high court’s decision that his appeal should be upheld, as there was ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 646
Quoting Melissa Davey:- "An interesting point to note in this case is that every court who heard the victim give evidence, convicted Pell.
The first court that didn't view that evidence acquitted him."
The first court that didn't view that evidence acquitted him."
