NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 4 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#798222 - 20/11/2009 20:43 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anemoi]
Rime Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/06/2001
Posts: 1444
Loc: Perth,WA
Originally Posted By: Anemoi


The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.


So all those skeptics, including those very educated individuals on these forums are ignorant? Well that is it folks! The AGW debate has truly been settled and we can all move on. Thank you for your input. We have learnt so much.

Top
#798225 - 20/11/2009 20:47 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anemoi]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
You just can't actually believe anything from the other side of your rigid beliefs without dismissing it somehow can you ST!

Top
#798239 - 20/11/2009 21:02 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anemoi]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.

The biggest tool in the climate change denial toolkit is not scientific accuracy but the sheer number of incorrect arguments, and the attempt to create confusion.



Originally Posted By: Anemoi
None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.

The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.


Mike et al
My original statement was
Quote:
Just what are the statistical odds that something that account's for less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere of our Planet being the driving force behind a rise of (insert number here) deg C over the next century or a sea level rise of (insert number here)?.

Compared to the forces of the Sun, Orbit, Tilt, Wobble to name but a few? just the Tilt alone gives us our Seasons, enough to bring snow and ice to formerly sunny climes. 0.038 %????

#797487 - 19-11-2009 16:37 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]

And was made in reference to Occams razor. It would help the discussion if you actually read the post's before flying off on tangents.

Top
#798243 - 20/11/2009 21:10 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anemoi]
Ijay Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 29/05/2002
Posts: 43
Loc: Wandella NSW far South Coast
Originally Posted By: Anemoi
None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.


Certainly one shouldn't drink and drive.

However, such concentrations do not imply a catastrophe for the body or indeed for intake to be restricted to below these levels at all times.

Cheers !

Top
#798248 - 20/11/2009 21:20 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ijay]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Well said smile I'll drink to that.

Top
#798261 - 20/11/2009 21:42 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
For such a young age ST, you seem to be very well versed in the issues of the planet? Can you remember the last wet era, the true floods, the last fantastic cropping season, the last rabbit plague, the fantastic fishing we had before the dreaded European carp, the way the rivers were before the planting of the European willow and the snag drag, to which the Government ordered based on "scientific evidence" and are now pushing back into the rivers for fish habitat, and you believe that Governments and their ilk make good decisions on how we should live!! The fox continues to decimate our native wildlife but the Gov makes it harder for me to retain my shooters license to fix them up for free in the state parks because its better to lock the parks up from the ferals for the ferals, no fire wood collection as a native lives in that log, no burning off as thats creating CO2, pattersons curse and lantana are rife, but thats alright, the bush fires caused by lightning strike due to the storms that global warming is causing started that, gets the native animals every time! Eventually, you will marry, have kids, have a new house and you will love the water you use on your new houses gardens that you extract from the nth/sth pipe line that is almost empty but the Gov said is good for the planet? Wake up to yourself and live a little first before believing everything that your told or read!!

Top
#798274 - 20/11/2009 22:20 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Ah! the certitude's of youth.
Well might I remember how we were going to reshape and rebuild the world in our image.
A couple of very nasty wars later, a lot of blood, droughts, fires, floods, recessions, political crisis, zealots, some very nasty, with bloody crusades of every type ready to save the lost of this planet and keep others who probably did not want to be saved anyhow from taking the wrong path.
They have all been in my life at some time and most are now lost in the mists of time and even their shadows have faded away forever.

Earth just keeps right on rolling along and couldn't give a damn about zealots or much else.
She will just keep right on doing what she has always done for the last four and a half billion years.

Amen to all the above, Simmo!

Top
#798321 - 21/11/2009 01:31 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
For such a young age ST, you seem to be very well versed in the issues of the planet? Can you remember the last wet era, the true floods, the last fantastic cropping season, the last rabbit plague, the fantastic fishing we had before the dreaded European carp, the way the rivers were before the planting of the European willow and the snag drag, to which the Government ordered based on "scientific evidence" and are now pushing back into the rivers for fish habitat, and you believe that Governments and their ilk make good decisions on how we should live!! The fox continues to decimate our native wildlife but the Gov makes it harder for me to retain my shooters license to fix them up for free in the state parks because its better to lock the parks up from the ferals for the ferals, no fire wood collection as a native lives in that log, no burning off as thats creating CO2, pattersons curse and lantana are rife, but thats alright, the bush fires caused by lightning strike due to the storms that global warming is causing started that, gets the native animals every time! Eventually, you will marry, have kids, have a new house and you will love the water you use on your new houses gardens that you extract from the nth/sth pipe line that is almost empty but the Gov said is good for the planet? Wake up to yourself and live a little first before believing everything that your told or read!!


Originally Posted By: ROM
Ah! the certitude's of youth.
Well might I remember how we were going to reshape and rebuild the world in our image.
A couple of very nasty wars later, a lot of blood, droughts, fires, floods, recessions, political crisis, zealots, some very nasty, with bloody crusades of every type ready to save the lost of this planet and keep others who probably did not want to be saved anyhow from taking the wrong path.
They have all been in my life at some time and most are now lost in the mists of time and even their shadows have faded away forever.

Earth just keeps right on rolling along and couldn't give a damn about zealots or much else.
She will just keep right on doing what she has always done for the last four and a half billion years.

Amen to all the above, Simmo!


Careful guys this thread is all about Science,(NOT). Personal observations are frowned upon due to non peer reviewed data and biased opinions, Old farts that have experienced what Australia's climate has thrown at them during their lifetime must have at least one peer reviewed paper and a Doctorate to add anything of value to this discussion.



depending on your point of view.

Top
#798329 - 21/11/2009 06:44 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Thanks for the criticism marakai and it was heard. My point was simple, science and Gov have made huge mistakes in the past with the environment, all in the last 50 or 60 years since we have started to believe that we control every process on the planet. And now we are well on the way to making another. Experience counts for decision making.

Top
#798351 - 21/11/2009 08:46 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
teckert Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 27/05/2001
Posts: 17706
Loc: NE suburbs, Adelaide, South Au...
no more warnings... you've all had enough. Anymore personal attacks or criticisms will incur an immediate ban.

Top
#798631 - 21/11/2009 22:31 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.


I agree with Mike on this: the argument that a gas which constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume does not have a significant affect on the climate assumes a proportional response, i.e. the impact on climate is proportional to the quantity of gas.

=> CO2 is released into the air by burning fossil fuels.
=> The air temperature increases due to radiant heat energy originating from at the surface being absorbed at lower and lower levels in the atmosphere [known as opacity].
=> Increasing the air temperature increases the rate of evaporation and transpiration.
=> More water vapour is released into the lower atmosphere.
=> Increased quantities of water vapour in the lower atmosphere increase radiant heat energy absorbed by the lower atmosphere from the surface (in the absence of clouds – clouds cover roughly 60% of the globe at any one time).
=> The air temperature rises.
=> Higher clouds result in more heating, lower clouds, more cooling (application of Ideal Gas Law and Opacity Principle).
=> This is a positive feedback for water vapour resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.
=> Water vapour is not uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, either vertically or horizontally.
=> CO2 is uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, and decreases uniformly with altitude.
=> In the absence of clouds the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> In the absence of water vapour the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> As water covers roughly 70% of the globe, there is the potential for increased heating resulting from a positive water vapour feedback, resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.



O.K so Co2 concentrations are rising every year and have been for the last century, IF Co2 is the driver of Global Warming WHY is it getting Cooler instead of Warmer?
Both land and SST have dropped over the last ten yrs. Is it that Co2 has reached it's saturation point? or that Co2 does not play as big a role in heating the planet as is promoted by the IPCC?
Cloud formation has also been linked to the Solar cycle could this play a role in the greenhouse cycle?
The Sun may only make up 0.008% of the sky but we actually do KNOW for a fact that it plays a much larger role in our planets weather cycle as opposed to the effects of Co2.

Top
#798662 - 22/11/2009 00:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Just a few thoughts on the supposed overwhelming consensus of climate change, I came across an author from the early part of the last century Immanuel Velikovsky. makes for some interesting reading http://www.varchive.org/.

One quote contained in one of his books The Acceptance of Correct Ideas in Science struck me as an apt description of some of the current Scientists that argue against the current dogma of human induced global warming, a little dramatic but still a good comparison of an individual going against the current belief system.
Quote:
In the history of science only the case of Copernicus caused a comparable objection and agitation. But Copernicus spared himself the abuse by the intentional postponement of the publication of his book until his very death. In his last days he was persuaded by his only pupil. Rheticus, to permit him to publish his work, De Revolutionibus, which he dedicated to Pope Paul III. On May 24, 1543, a few hours before Copernicus died, the first copy was put in his hands. In it he said:

“I can easily conceive . . . that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected. Accordingly, when I considered in my own mind how absurd a performance it might seem to those who know that the judgement of many centuries has approved the view that the Earth remains fixed as center in the midst of heaven, if I should on the contrary assert that the Earth moves — when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to abandon the work I had begun. How did it occur to me to venture, contrary to the accepted view of the mathematicians, and well-nigh contrary to common sense, to form any conception of any terrestrial motion whatsoever?”


We all know now how that ended up.

Top
#798781 - 22/11/2009 10:34 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Another big bad nasty climate destroying, man made disaster that is already being used to scare the herd and to try and ensure the immense profits from an ETS scheme will continue to roll in to the rapacious financial sector are the claims that CO2 will acidify the oceans.

There are over 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water in the global oceans. [ 1,300,000,000 cubic kiometres ]
Each of those cubic kilometres of sea water weigh somewhere about 1.1 billion tonnes.

The amount of anthrogenic CO2 released by mankind per year is about an "estimated" [?] 2.3 billion tonnes.
That mass of CO2 is approximately equal to the mass of water in 2.3 cubic kilometres of water.

A mass of CO2 equal to about 2.3 cubic kilometres of water added to a mass of sea water of 1.3 billion cubic kilometres each year.

Methinks we could be an awful long time getting those global oceans to change to acid from what is an already high Ph alkalinity level.

There will be of course all sorts of claims on CO2 just mixing in the top layers and numerous other side tracks and deviations that will be attempted to use to frighten the herd as to the severity of the CO2 acidification.
The truth is that nobody really has much of a handle on the global CO2 sinks, where they actually are, how they operate, if they release CO2 back into the atmosphere and etc and etc.
For instance, nobody can tell accurately tell us just how much CO2 is used, absorbed, and possibly released by the great plant like algal masses of the relatively unexplored oceans, oceans that cover close to 80% of the planet's surface.
There is as yet a lot of suggestions floating around on why the measured CO2 levels oscillate back and forth over the swing of the seasons.
It is put down to the plant growth in the northern spring but what about the far greater mass of ocean algae which also change with the seasons in the oceans.

There will be many more twists and turns in this climate saga and of course if the CERN collider which is firing up tonight finally proves Svensmark's hypothesis that clouds are the main controlling feedback that maintains relatively steady global temperatures, then the claims of increasing CO2 as a major climate problem becomes null and void.

And in fact as plants like Wheat for instance gives it's best yields at around 700 ppm of CO2 then more CO2 will be very beneficial indeed for the world at large as our food production is enhanced by the rise in global CO2 levels and that extra yield occurs WITHOUT any extra water or fertilizers.
More CO2, more food and no extra cost.

And overall sits the great nuclear furnace in the sky from which ultimately all life must and does depend on for it's very existence and survival.
The sun just may be going for a bit of a quiet rest for the next few cycles and if it does so, history indicates we should then become really concerned as bitter cold may again be the lot of this planet for the next few decades.
And that would be a possible disaster beyond our imagination.

I think I will take a lot more convincing in this case that our measly annual release of anthrogenic CO2 which is only a very small addition to the levels of natural atmospheric CO2, will acidify the oceans any time soon.

Top
#798800 - 22/11/2009 11:18 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
We are told that the sun's radiation is not a significant cause of the warming. Is man so arrogant that he thinks his contributions can outdo that of the other ways in which the sun affects our weather?

I think he is. And incorrigibly so.

Top
#799029 - 22/11/2009 19:48 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Keith]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

Pravda.ru forum. The place where truth hurts

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/

Top
#799135 - 23/11/2009 01:08 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
No evidence for AGW

Quote:
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-111111694523

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-111111694523

Top
#799138 - 23/11/2009 01:20 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
BOM99 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2004
Posts: 4645
Loc: Australia
Yes, well I will beleive an ice age when I see one. In the mean time most Russia weather stations are still running at above average temperatures.

The current situation is starting to look quite alarmimg, record hot year for Australia. Currently the northern winter seems to be stalling. Satelite readings at all levels of the atmosphere are now at record highs. Even the positive sea surface anomalies are now more widespread around the world than I have ever seen. And all this at a time of record low solar activity, the evidence against AGW is now at its weakest I have ever seen.

It is still unclear why all this warming, but there is no doubt that warming going on right now as we speak.

I had a thought today why there might have been such a strong rebound in temperatures after the last ice age. When the ice age ended there would have been quite extensive barren areas of the Earth with little vegetation. The cleared landscape could absorb IR well and may have helped overheat the Earth to that peak 8000-5000 years ago. However once the climate restabalised and vegetation once again took hold of the Earth the temperatures cooled back a couple of degrees.

If indeed the sun is the main driver of climate change then that agrees with the medievil warm period and the little ice age. However now this relationship seems to be breaking down, probably due to a combination of land clearing, urbanisation and CO2 levels.

In order to stabalise the climate I think it is just as important to restore forests around the world as it is to reduce CO2 output. That is also why population reduction is so important just reducing CO2 will not be enough. Bacteria over forests act as catalyst for rainfall then rainfall again reduces and stabalises temperatures with cloud cover. Deforestaion and CO2 is to blame for the increasingly sporadic and unrealiable rainfall all over the world not just Australia.

Top
#799151 - 23/11/2009 06:15 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: BOM99]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Keith,

No where in mainstream science is the significance of the sun as the driver of the weather engines on our fair planet downplayed. Not in the GISS, not in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research division, no where.

It is downplayed by the AGW high priests, who formulate warming dogma.

I think it is of some importance that the science, Galileo style, assert its dominance over dogma, and populist fallacies.

Top
#799153 - 23/11/2009 06:52 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Ben, aren't those high priests the ones who formulated the 'consensus'..what was it now, some 2200 scientists? The so-called insignificance of the sun is always being trotted out as one of the many pro-AGW apologetics...it's all over the place. Maybe they are the only ones doing this but if they speak for the 'science', why would that matter? If as you suggest they don't speak for the science, why are we having this Copenhagen farce? If this means that their detractors (those whom the IPCC 'dismissed') are right after all, that seems to me to invalidate the IPCC even further (as in the leaked emails thread).

Top
#799159 - 23/11/2009 07:27 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Solar activity peaked 50 years ago. The sun has been contributing a cooling trend not a warming trend since then, so if the sun has a stronger impact on climate then mainstream scientists predict, it is more likely that Co2 causes more warming to ofset this cooling, not less.

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Keith,

It is downplayed by the AGW high priests, who formulate warming dogma.



So who are these AGW high priests formulating dogma and downplaying solar influence?


Edited by Mike Hauber (23/11/2009 07:27)

Top
Page 4 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 41 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
MatthewBr, Raweth, Russellmill
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image