Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[qldfrog]

A simple point: why on earth are we not mandating white or reflective roofcover in australia instead of trying some pointless PR scheme; when you consider the amount of solar energy per sqrmeter we receive, that simple no cost idiotic answer would have a decent impact..but is it too cheap???

 

[qldfrog]

about trees, you are right explod, especially in Australia, but in Europe and northern America, tree cover is increasing dramatically and has been in the last 50y

 

[explod]

Explod saiD:
Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking
fine point ......

I did not say any of what you put up at all qldfrog. It's pretty evident that the miss quotes are posted in order to nullify the real positions put forward.

 

[explod]

A simple point: why on earth are we not mandating white or reflective roofcover in australia instead of trying some pointless PR scheme; when you consider the amount of solar energy per sqrmeter we receive, that simple no cost idiotic answer would have a decent impact..but is it too cheap???

Yes have noted dark tiled roov's for years, they absorb heat and cold, bt good for the power providers. Antarctica explorers found they had to wear white to reflect cold. And white also reflects the heat, more than 10c difference in most situations. On my leaving the police Force I argued with them on going to darker cars and black uniforms. Unfortunately it's style and looks over practicalities.

 

[Smurf1976]

If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around

That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.

What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.

There's likely going to be some sort of consequence from doing that.

In any event, even if CO2 makes absolutely zero difference to heat retention, there's still rather a lot of other good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. CO2 is far from being the only problem there and for that matter temperature isn't the only problem with CO2.

 

[bellenuit]

Yes have noted dark tiled roov's for years, they absorb heat and cold, bt good for the power providers. Antarctica explorers found they had to wear white to reflect cold.

I'm not arguing, but how do you reflect cold? Cold is not a thing, but the absence of heat.

 

[Sdajii]

So Sdaji, the effect of trees is ignored.

Over the last 100 years here in Western Victoria the increasing dryer periods correlate with the thinning out of trees. I've put up on ASF many times the anger of my Father at Premier Henry Bolte allowing the ball and chains to clear the Heytesbury area. The farmers way back knew and in fact 10 years later we had our first drought there (1966/7). My Grandfather on a farm at Diggera West, north west of Bendigo was likewise political on this subject. You can have your scientists no worries but the people on the land (on the ground if you like) see, feel and are directly affected by it, they know.

Many of our showers in Melbourne emanate from the forests of the Otway ranges. To the eye of those who know their country it is clear. From 30 kms back from my work period at Camperdown I could see the moisture rising off the Otways. My interest, I grew up with it.

These issues are not as you infer all natural, most is man made and the rain problem of course is just one.

These posts are beyond bizarre.

You try to convince me of things I've already myself pointed out in just my previous few posts in this very thread.

Well done, I agree. Congratulations, you joined me and said stuff I agree with, although acting as though I don't agree was a peculiar twist I don't see the point of.

The last point though, I don't agree with. I don't necessarily disagree with it either, but in reality we don't have enough evidence to say whether the majority of the current movements are natural or manmade. We do know that huge climate shifts occur naturally. We can not be sure what would currently be happening without human influence, but we can be sure that what is currently happening would not be unusual without human influence. We don't have a control planet for comparison.

I do agree that we are rapidly causing huge destruction of the planet and we should stop. I have no doubt that we will not stop. I don't for a minute think that CO2 is a relevant concern in the current situation. I totally agree that land clearing is a massive issue, arguably the biggest and certainly in the top few.

 

[Sdajii]

That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.

What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.

There's likely going to be some sort of consequence from doing that.

As a scientist, I see no evidence for that, and some nobody like you isn't going to change my mind. In terms of greenhouse gases it is irrelevant. It will help plants grow faster which will probably be its main effect.

Absolutely, what humans are doing is in many ways unprecedented, and there are some big concerns. CO2 doesn't rank highly.

In any event, even if CO2 makes absolutely zero difference to heat retention, there's still rather a lot of other good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. CO2 is far from being the only problem there and for that matter temperature isn't the only problem with CO2.

Yes and no, but importantly: The argument is moot because right or wrong, it won't change the fact that people will just go with what's cheapest, and perhaps slap a tax on it along the way while using it anyway, and attitudes like yours still allow CO2 to be the distraction away from the actually important issues which you fail to make your focus. But that sort of comes back to the previous point which is that it wouldn't change anything anyway, it would just mean that rather than focussing on the distraction and whinging about it, we'd be focussing on the actual problem which our whinges did nothing. The main difference to me would be that I'd feel a bit more content watching the majority of people talking about the issue being correct while the world goes to Hell.

 

[Smurf1976]

As a scientist, I see no evidence for that

One approach is to seek evidence that something did not occur. This seems to be the approach you are referring to with your comment that you have seen no evidence.

An alternative approach is to seek evidence that something did occur. Suffice to say I have seen no evidence, and am not aware of any credible claim from anyone else to the effect, that past warming of the earth was followed by large scale combustion of fossil fuels.

If we can find ruins of ancient civilisations, dinosaur bones and so on then it seems somewhat remarkable that we have failed to find any trace whatsoever of multiple previous efforts at large scale fossil fuel extraction and use. At least some evidence of it having existed would have survived surely be that in the form of equipment or simply the site of coal mines etc. Thus far the best we've come up with is very limited use in China 3000 years ago which is nowhere even remotely close to the scale that would be required.

I note in that context that achieving the large scale extraction and use of fossil fuels also requires that materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and pressures exist as well as some actual purpose which warranted this large scale activity.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing ever took place beyond perhaps a trivial scale collecting coal and oil naturally found on or very close to the surface.

There is of course an alternative explanation for rising CO2 levels after warming which does not involve fossil fuels at all.

some nobody like you isn't going to change my mind.

That statement may however clarify a number of points in the minds of others.

Yes and no

Yes to what and no to what?

attitudes like yours still allow CO2 to be the distraction away from the actually important issues which you fail to make your focus.

An interesting observation given that I have previously commented on this forum that CO2 is just one of the many problems we have environmentally, the big one being that humans are using too much of just about everything as the inevitable consequence of too many people each carrying out too much activity. That's unsustainable no matter how it's powered.

Even with CO2, temperature change isn't the only problem with it. That it's somewhat acidic is a problem in itself if the concentration is increased sufficiently.

Fossil fuels were, of course, a problem long before mainstream concern about CO2. Whilst nuclear fission turned out to be largely a dud alternative, it's simply too expensive, that's not a reason to not seek other alternatives.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not arguing, but how do you reflect cold? Cold is not a thing, but the absence of heat.

It's not about reflecting cold but about not dissipating heat as effectively.

 

[Sdajii]

One approach is to seek evidence that something did not occur. This seems to be the approach you are referring to with your comment that you have seen no evidence.

An alternative approach is to seek evidence that something did occur. Suffice to say I have seen no evidence, and am not aware of any credible claim from anyone else to the effect, that past warming of the earth was followed by large scale combustion of fossil fuels.

If we can find ruins of ancient civilisations, dinosaur bones and so on then it seems somewhat remarkable that we have failed to find any trace whatsoever of multiple previous efforts at large scale fossil fuel extraction and use. At least some evidence of it having existed would have survived surely be that in the form of equipment or simply the site of coal mines etc. Thus far the best we've come up with is very limited use in China 3000 years ago which is nowhere even remotely close to the scale that would be required.

Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.

I note in that context that achieving the large scale extraction and use of fossil fuels also requires that materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and pressures exist as well as some actual purpose which warranted this large scale activity.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing ever took place beyond perhaps a trivial scale collecting coal and oil naturally found on or very close to the surface.

Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???

There is of course an alternative explanation for rising CO2 levels after warming which does not involve fossil fuels at all.

In other news, water is wet. Perhaps you can teach us maths too and reveal the mystery of 1 + 1

An interesting observation given that I have previously commented on this forum that CO2 is just one of the many problems we have environmentally, the big one being that humans are using too much of just about everything as the inevitable consequence of too many people each carrying out too much activity. That's unsustainable no matter how it's powered.

Wow, and I thought 'water is wet' was an example of an obvious statement, but there you go, you've outdone me, though since you weren't saying it in an ironic context it's a bit of a worry.

Fossil fuels were, of course, a problem long before mainstream concern about CO2. Whilst nuclear fission turned out to be largely a dud alternative, it's simply too expensive, that's not a reason to not seek other alternatives.

Where did I say we shouldn't seek alternatives?

 

[explod]

These posts are beyond bizarre.

You try to convince me of things I've already myself pointed out in just my previous few posts in this very thread.

.

I apologize for this. Totally missed one of your posts just prior which caused a bad misread of another on my part.

 

[SirRumpole]

That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.

What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.

There's likely going to be some sort of consequence from doing that.

In any event, even if CO2 makes absolutely zero difference to heat retention, there's still rather a lot of other good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. CO2 is far from being the only problem there and for that matter temperature isn't the only problem with CO2.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

 

[Darc Knight]

Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.

Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???

In other news, water is wet. Perhaps you can teach us maths too and reveal the mystery of 1 + 1

Wow, and I thought 'water is wet' was an example of an obvious statement, but there you go, you've outdone me, though since you weren't saying it in an ironic context it's a bit of a worry.

Where did I say we shouldn't seek alternatives?

I'm giving you a few likes, not because I agree with you but as recognition of your contribution.
Your smooth talking as per above does make me laugh.

 

[Smurf1976]

Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???

It’s your argument not mine that increases in temperature cause CO2 to go up.

My argument is that the present practice of extracting large amounts of carbon and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to any known and understood past occurrence and is justified cause for at least some level of concern.

Your point about temperature leading CO2 is thus a strawman so far as the question of fossil fuel extraction and use is concerned unless you can demonstrate that such activity played a role in the past cycles you reference. My contention is that there is no evidence that large scale fossil fuel use was a part of any previous cycle.

Your claims of certainty as to the future on matters as diverse as the atmosphere and commodity markets are quite bizarre really. Hopefully they are an act and intended to entertain in which case yes, you’re fairly good at playing the character.

If it’s not an act then life will deliver some rude shocks at some point that’s for sure. Arrogance precedes a downfall. That’s an observation of life not a personal threat.

 

[Knobby22]

The only other person I have heard expound the theory in Australia that global warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide rather than the other way around is ex Senator Malcolm Roberts, ex coal miner and founder of the Galileo society.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

The theory was developed by Roy Spencer.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer. He is also involved with the creationists and regularly makes the rounds at the Heartlands institute denialist conferences. the Heartland Institute was of course sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris. As we know the same people who were paid to deny smoking caused cancer became the main speakers for climate change denial. As always, follow the money.

 

[Sdajii]

It’s your argument not mine that increases in temperature cause CO2 to go up.

It's not 'my argument' - just go grab a chart of temperature and CO2 levels from google right now and use your eyeballs to confirm that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. You can play around with explanations of that phenomenon if you like.

My argument is that the present practice of extracting large amounts of carbon and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to any known and understood past occurrence and is justified cause for at least some level of concern.

I do not disagree with this, but all reasonable assessments find no reason to be alarmed and absolutely none in the context of what people are jumping up and down about. The main issue with the increased levels of CO2 is how it may affect plant growth. Probably not a giant concern and possibly even a good thing.

Your point about temperature leading CO2 is thus a strawman so far as the question of fossil fuel extraction and use is concerned unless you can demonstrate that such activity played a role in the past cycles you reference. My contention is that there is no evidence that large scale fossil fuel use was a part of any previous cycle.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is? This paragraph is too bizarre and nonsensical to respond to.

Your claims of certainty as to the future on matters as diverse as the atmosphere and commodity markets are quite bizarre really. Hopefully they are an act and intended to entertain in which case yes, you’re fairly good at playing the character.

Bizarre is that in your imagination, despite in the real world I have pointed out that climate is a wildly complex and unpredictable thing, your reality has me predicting the future climate with certainty. Could you tell me what my predictions were in your fantasy reality? Sort of curious to know what my character is like. As for my oil price predictions, don't call me crazy before I turn out to be correct.

If it’s not an act then life will deliver some rude shocks at some point that’s for sure. Arrogance precedes a downfall. That’s an observation of life not a personal threat.

Take a look in the mirror

 

[Skate]

Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.

@Sdajii - Seriously, WTF?

To keep this thread civil I'll assume WTF is an acronym for "Way To Funny"

On a sad note
A friend sent me a text the other day informing me that his wife passed away.
To show I cared I sent a return text.. LOL
How was I to know it didn't stand for Lots Of Love

Needless to say - I'm no longer on his Christmas Card List.

I do Know this
WTF comes directly after Monday, Tuesday...

Skate.

 

[PZ.]

I once asked a friend if I could see her next Tuesday - she said "no you can't"

 

[bellenuit]

A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.