Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Heat from the sun

Reply
Created by bjw Wednesday, 11 Sep 2019
azymuth
WA, 747 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 4:05PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
petermac33 said..
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.




Here's a scientific paper on just that subject - have you seen one before?
Have a read, see how you go.
You might finally understand why your thoughts are irrelevant and why we should only listen to scientists.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.8424&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 6:14PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Shifu said..
Deniers. Deniers as far as the eye can see. Mistrustful of science and preferring their own amateur analysis over that of trained researchers.


It's an odd thing that most people believe that they are experts in their own job, but the same people will deny that other people are experts in their jobs.

To be one of the top scientists, you normally have to do pretty well at school. You've then got to be close to the top in your degree, then close to the top in your honours etc, then close to the top in your PhD, then do well as a postdoc, then you have to rise through the ranks.

One academic I know was the top honours student in a science and technology stream that had 18,000 undergrads. So you've got to be outstanding to even get a job. And then if you rise to the top, some people on a forum say "I've never studied what you work in; I've never worked in your field; I've never been as good at anything as you are in your job - but *&^% you, I know ALL about your field and you know &^$%"

It's bizarre. If you walked up to people in other jobs, from bricklaying to plumbing to brain surgery, and said "I've never done what you do but I know more about it than you do" they'd just think you're an idiot.* But apparently if you're talking climate science, then people off the street know more than those who have spent 20 years studying it.

eppo
WA, 7252 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 4:16PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Shifu said..
Deniers. Deniers as far as the eye can see. Mistrustful of science and preferring their own amateur analysis over that of trained researchers.


Creating entire careers on a point of view and facts that seem to fit their point of view.

azymuth
WA, 747 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 4:30PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote



Chris 249 said..



It's bizarre. If you walked up to people in other jobs, from bricklaying to plumbing to brain surgery, and said "I've never done what you do but I know more about it than you do" they'd just think you're an idiot.* But apparently if you're talking climate science, then people off the street know more than those who have spent 20 years studying it.




Agree - it's nuts.

Perhaps it's economics and politics driving the denialism.
I'm certain that a non-scientist has no chance of understanding the science.

azymuth
WA, 747 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 4:36PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote


eppo said..Creating entire careers on a point of view and facts that seem to fit their point of view.




You don't think there would be other scientists happily waiting to expose the dodgy facts?
Einstein was excited to show that Newton was wrong.
Bell was excited to show that Einstein was wrong.

That's how science works.

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 7:09PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
eppo said..


Shifu said..
Deniers. Deniers as far as the eye can see. Mistrustful of science and preferring their own amateur analysis over that of trained researchers.




Creating entire careers on a point of view and facts that seem to fit their point of view.



Really? Please give us some evidence. We know that's not true at all about Brian Schmidt, to give just one example off the top of my head.

If someone wanted to create an entire career on a point of view, why would they adopt a point of view that put them in opposition with one of the world's biggest industries? If it was all about the money and a career, why would they attack one of the world's best sources for cash and careers?

Why do you apparently assume that it's only those who believe in AGW that "create entire careers on a point of view"???? Why would that not apply to AGW "denialists" and "sceptics", to the pollies who don't believe in AGW, to the journos who favour the oil companies point of view, and to those who run "denialist" websites?

Oh, and it's odd that you seem to think something is wrong about creating theories about "facts that seem to fit their point of view". If the facts seem to fit your point of view then your point of view is likely to be right. Would you rather they create theories about facts that DON'T fit their point of view, or theories without facts at all?

log man
VIC, 7050 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 10:06PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
azymuth said..





Chris 249 said..




It's bizarre. If you walked up to people in other jobs, from bricklaying to plumbing to brain surgery, and said "I've never done what you do but I know more about it than you do" they'd just think you're an idiot.* But apparently if you're talking climate science, then people off the street know more than those who have spent 20 years studying it.





Agree - it's nuts.

Perhaps it's economics and politics driving the denialism.
I'm certain that a non-scientist has no chance of understanding the science.


It's incredibly egocentric........either that or it's just attention seeking behaiviour.........or it's just stupidity

bjw
NSW, 2865 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 10:22PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Shifu said..
Deniers. Deniers as far as the eye can see. Mistrustful of science and preferring their own amateur analysis over that of trained researchers.


Wow. You really don't like people to disagree with your opinion.

Its not Politics, its not sports teams, its science. Challenge it always.

mineral1
WA, 4468 posts
Wednesday , 11 Sep 2019 9:56PM
Thumbs Up

Lots of sheepl in this topic

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 6:22AM
Thumbs Up

On what side? Last time I looked, sheep didn't read science.

Shifu
QLD, 1241 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 6:39AM
Thumbs Up

Climate denialism is propelled by the magnitude of the bad news. This story is just too horrible for people to cope with, so they comfort themselves by latching onto ways in which the story might not be true. Every denier in this thread is doing it because the fact that human caused climate warming is real is too confronting for them.

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 11:58AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
seabreezer said..
Some say this lower solar output equates to around 0.3 of a degree global temp cooling ... Look up Maunder Min also - we are heading into a decade of LOWER solar output of the sun (less sun spots ) ... so maybe the SLIGHT up-creap of global temp will be offset ... I've been casually researching man induced climate for a while ... and Im for sure more and more leaning to natural variation and think the climate change group have become utterly 'cultist' .... There's 32,000 + scientists that have signed a document stating 'THEY DO NOT believe were heading for climate catastrophy , and claims of man-induced warming a WAY over hyped ...."

Did you here of the climate change sceptic calling out a published paper scientist (ipcc ) as a fraud - the climate change scientist took him to court for Libel (in canada I think) - and the climate sceptic won ! (ie the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud ) - because the climate change scientist REFUSED to release all his data points - which pretty much proved he had cherry picked his data to suit his bias .... (there is alot of funding / money to be made to keep pushing a climate change agenda )

The 32 computer models of future change are flawed beyond belief - and the closest model that has tracked temp increase over the last decades is the RUSSIAN model - which has modest global temp increases ....

The planet is the greenest its been in a century - and CO2 is not a demon gas (AS CLIMATE SCAREMONGERS would have you believe) - but essential and life promoting ....




Sorry, but you are completely and utterly wrong about the "libel case in Canada". The climate sceptics did NOT win. One of them published a grovelling apology;


The case against the other sceptic basically ran out of time, with each side accusing the other of stalling. It is utterly incorrect to say that the sceptics won.

There is far more money to be made fighting against the "climate change agenda" than fighting for it. The fossil fuel industry is worth trillions and is incomparably richer and higher-paying than academic science. As one snapshot, the CEO of Exxon gets 17.5 million US per year salary. A leading climate sceptic like Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt gets about $430k US for running the Australian National University. He won the world's top science prize and it earned him what the Exxon guy gets every three weeks. How can anyone pretend that a profession where the big wigs get $430 k has"a lot of money" compared to the one where the big wig gets $17.5 MILLION?

What "scaremonger" ever claimed that C02 was a "demon gas"?

Who were the 32,000 "scientists"who signed that petition? For a start, all you had to do to qualify as a "scientist" was to have an undergrad degree in any science; you didn't have to have worked as a scientist or work in earth sciences. As Skeptical Science says, over 10 million people qualified, so the 32,000 "scientists" who signed the petition were just 0.3% of the people eligible.

Not only are these people extremely rare, but the overwhelming majority have no relevant qualifications. Let's start by looking up the first five "scientists" on Google.

1- Earl M. Aagaard, PhD. Is a scientist. Writes " I accept the Bible account as true, just as it is written. This means Creation in seven consecutive literal days a short time ago, a worldwide Flood". So if you accept what Earl thinks, you'd better not sail on Sundays, or you'll rot in hell. :-p

2- Charles W. Aami. No one can find anything about him being a "scientist".

3- Roger L. Aamodt, PhD. Cancer specialist.

4- Wilbur A. Aanes. Vet

5- M. Robert Aaron. Telecommunications.

I found I'm not the first to have done this, but the obvious point is that these people are not qualified in the relevant science. No disrespect to vets, for example, but it's as logical to ask a vet about global warming as it is to ask a meteorologist how to fix your dog's liver.

japie
QLD, 5243 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 2:16PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
azymuth said..


eppo said..Creating entire careers on a point of view and facts that seem to fit their point of view.




You don't think there would be other scientists happily waiting to expose the dodgy facts?
Einstein was excited to show that Newton was wrong.
Bell was excited to show that Einstein was wrong.

That's how science works.

Used to work. Before they all got bought up!

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 3:07PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
japie said..

azymuth said..




eppo said..Creating entire careers on a point of view and facts that seem to fit their point of view.





You don't think there would be other scientists happily waiting to expose the dodgy facts?
Einstein was excited to show that Newton was wrong.
Bell was excited to show that Einstein was wrong.

That's how science works.


Used to work. Before they all got bought up!


Really? So a company like Exxon that earns a BILLION bucks US every three months has been outbid for the services of scientists who earn on average US 65k or so per year?

The average research scientist earns just under $80k AUS. The average salary in the oil and gas field is $125k. The average graduate fresh from uni in the oil and gas sector earns more than the average experienced research scientist.
www.payscale.com/research/AU/Industry=Oil_and_Gas_Extraction/Salary www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Research_Scientist/Salary
gradaustralia.com.au/mining-oil-gas/salaries-and-benefits-for-graduates-in-the-mining-sector

So the people in the fossil fuel industry earn more than the scientists. The fossil fuel industry is one of the biggest and richest in the world. Why do you claim the scientists have been bought, especially since many of them could earn far more working for fossil fuel manufacturers?

If the science is getting distorted by money, then the fossil fuel industry could fix the problem by using some of its vast wealth to pay for more scientists. Why don't they?



DelFuego
WA, 136 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 2:48PM
Thumbs Up

thank you chris 249, for some relevant facts.

unfortunately you are arguing with deniers who either believe the earth is flat or believe there is a conspiracy about climate science

Deniers use ridiculous propaganda memes and web pages, made up by aligned deniers who have money in the fossil fuel industry, most of us know they are not relevant as scientific fact.

Foghorn
WA, 273 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 2:51PM
Thumbs Up

The disgraceful treatment of environmental icon David Bellamy says it all really ,without even getting to the science .If that's not trying to enforce a thought president i don't know what is.

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 5:28PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Foghorn said..
The disgraceful treatment of environmental icon David Bellamy says it all really ,without even getting to the science .If that's not trying to enforce a thought president i don't know what is.


Exactly what treatment, may I ask? Sure, some people may have criticised Bellamy. That's what happens in science. Bellamy criticised AGW theories as "poppycock" and similar terms, so why should be be treated with kid gloves? Does he get to insult people without copping anything in return?

Sure, in an ideal world it shouldn't happen. But look at the implied insults that the "sceptics" throw around here. They imply that there's a huge conspiracy of scientists. How is that any better than the way Bellamy was treated? Apparently he reckons his views caused the BBC to stop featuring him, but the BBC is not run by academics. Over the last couple of years there have been annual lectures in his name, so it doesn't seem that he has been ostracised.

Foghorn
WA, 273 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 3:34PM
Thumbs Up

Oh I'm pretty sure he got the Galileo treatment.The bbc shut him out completely.

petermac33
WA, 5220 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 3:39PM
Thumbs Up

The mainstream media influences pub lic opinion a thousand times greater than a few lectures I'm afraid.

The sacking of Bellamy from the media is a clear indicator to what side they're on.

Ian K
NSW, 2920 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 6:26PM
Thumbs Up

So I googled what David Bellamy has to say.

"Abstract
This paper demonstrates that the widely prophesied doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial values will enhance the so-called 'greenhouse effect' but will amount to less than 1?C of global warming. It also points out that such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels-certainly not before the end of this century. Furthermore, the paper argues that general circulation models are as yet insufficiently accurate for civil engineers to rely on their predictions in any forward-planning decisions-the omission of solar wind effects being a potentially significant shortcoming. It concludes that the only certainty is that the world's fossil fuel resources are finite and should be used prudently and with proper respect to the environment."

Sounds fair enough. No doubt he's looked into it in much more detail than I have.

It's not really a yeah or nay issue though. You don't have to take sides. It's how much of it's us compared to what was going to happen without us. (That includes getting colder). Nobody would really say 110%, nobody would say 10% ( anybody? ). Given what an imprecise science it is and all the unknowns, anywhere in between cannot be dismissed. Not that I'm an atmospheric scientist.

Q. What do we know for sure apart from CO2 rising over the past few years to 400 ppm ?

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 7:04PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
petermac33 said..
The mainstream media influences pub lic opinion a thousand times greater than a few lectures I'm afraid.

The sacking of Bellamy from the media is a clear indicator to what side they're on.


I didn't say the lectures got as much publicity as airplay - I said they may indicate he was not ostracised.

The idea that the "mainstream media" are all on one side is very wrong - look at the Murdoch press. Look at Alan Jones. It's not as if the "sceptics" don't get press.

On one side of the debate we have PMs, the President, the Murdoch press, Fox, two of the world's biggest industries and the world's richest family. They control vast sums - in 2011 for example, Ford spent 2.1 BILLION US on ads in the USA. General Motors spent 3.1 BILLION the same year. On the other side we have public broadcasters and scientists who certainly aren't in it for the money. Why believe that the enormously wealthy side is the victim and the guys who earn less than an oil engineer fresh from undergrad school are the powerful?

Finally, no one has yet presented any actual evidence that Bellamy's claims about AGW were the reason he lost the BBC gig. He said later ""No, I had made (shows) about which I knew. I had pretty much run out of those. And TV has changed, with gadgets and all that." He was in his late '70s, he said himself he'd run out of ideas, he had a controversial run for politics; all those could well have been factors. Wiki shows his list of TV shows and there doesn't seem to have been a big drop in the number of his appearances after he made those comments.

Perhaps Bellamy was shunned, but no one has actually shown any objective evidence about it. Claims from one side do not constitute objective evidence. Even if he was shunned for his views and for his insults, which would be sad, that doesn't mean that his scientific claims were right.
It doesn't mean that there is some massive conspiracy or bias.

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 7:36PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Foghorn said..
Oh I'm pretty sure he got the Galileo treatment.The bbc shut him out completely.



Okay, well let's examine that. Bellamy told The Independent that "his fame and acclaim rolled off the rails in 2004 when - in the teeth of public opinion and mounting scientific evidence - he said global warming was nothing but "poppycock". That was in the Daily Mail on 9 July 2004....oh by the way, isn't that a mainstream paper?

Right - so let's look at how "shut out completely" he was.

February 2005, he's listed as a "star" in the BBC show "The Daily Politics". www.imdb.com/title/tt0552499/
Looks like he's on "Ask Daisy" later that year; news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/4438501.stm
2007, he's appearing in "The Swish of the Curtain" on the BBC; genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/f7476f9c81cf4f3890699f36e97f5247 ; on an episode of the BBC's "The Secret Life of the Motorway". In 2008, he's on the BBC's "Francesco's Meditteranean Voyage". In 2009, he's on the BBC's "Toy Stories" and "The Funny Side of...." Don't forget, he's in his mid 70s by this time - lots of TV careers have ended long before that age. He'd also had gaps in his career earlier. And around 2006, he got gigs on commercial TV as well.

Basically, it is completely and utterly untrue to claim that "the BBC cut him out completely". And let's do a little more digging. In 2002, well before his comments on global warming, he blamed the end of his career on the fact that he stood in the 1997 election. "In some ways it was probably the most stupid thing I ever did because I'm sure that if I have been banned from television, that's why. I used to be on Blue Peter and all those things, regularly, and it all, pffffft, stopped."

The journo who wrote the story noted that "Actually, he says, his TV career had stopped some time before that - he made his last BBC series eight years ago." So for one, Bellamy's career was on the slide a full TEN YEARS before he made his global warming comment. Secondly, he had already blamed his sliding career on his entry into politics.
www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/30/broadcasting.academicexperts

So;
1- The BBC did NOT "shut him out completely"; he got gigs afterwards'
2- He said himself he had run out of ideas;
3- He had earlier blamed his fading career on an entirely different cause;
4- His career had started to fail even before that.

There seems to be very little evidence to back any claim that his career was ended by his comments, and he certainly was NOT "shut out completely".

Chris 249
NSW, 1822 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 7:38PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Ian K said..
So I googled what David Bellamy has to say.

"Abstract
This paper demonstrates that the widely prophesied doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial values will enhance the so-called 'greenhouse effect' but will amount to less than 1?C of global warming. It also points out that such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels-certainly not before the end of this century. Furthermore, the paper argues that general circulation models are as yet insufficiently accurate for civil engineers to rely on their predictions in any forward-planning decisions-the omission of solar wind effects being a potentially significant shortcoming. It concludes that the only certainty is that the world's fossil fuel resources are finite and should be used prudently and with proper respect to the environment."

Sounds fair enough. No doubt he's looked into it in much more detail than I have.

It's not really a yeah or nay issue though. You don't have to take sides. It's how much of it's us compared to what was going to happen without us. (That includes getting colder). Nobody would really say 110%, nobody would say 10% ( anybody? ). Given what an imprecise science it is and all the unknowns, anywhere in between cannot be dismissed. Not that I'm an atmospheric scientist.

Q. What do we know for sure apart from CO2 rising over the past few years to 400 ppm ?


Good post, Ian.

azymuth
WA, 747 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 9:27PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote

japie said..Used to work. Before they all got bought up!




Silly

Kamikuza
QLD, 4198 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 11:34PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..
Really? So a company like Exxon that earns a BILLION bucks US every three months has been outbid for the services of scientists who earn on average US 65k or so per year?

The average research scientist earns just under $80k AUS. The average salary in the oil and gas field is $125k. The average graduate fresh from uni in the oil and gas sector earns more than the average experienced research scientist.
www.payscale.com/research/AU/Industry=Oil_and_Gas_Extraction/Salary www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Research_Scientist/Salary
gradaustralia.com.au/mining-oil-gas/salaries-and-benefits-for-graduates-in-the-mining-sector

So the people in the fossil fuel industry earn more than the scientists. The fossil fuel industry is one of the biggest and richest in the world. Why do you claim the scientists have been bought, especially since many of them could earn far more working for fossil fuel manufacturers?

If the science is getting distorted by money, then the fossil fuel industry could fix the problem by using some of its vast wealth to pay for more scientists. Why don't they?


Yes. Why don't they?

Twimby
WA, 425 posts
Thursday , 12 Sep 2019 10:00PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
petermac33 said..
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.


Which sun you talking about. The little FE one 3000km out, or the big one 150m km out?

kilo54
5 posts
Friday , 13 Sep 2019 12:11AM
Thumbs Up

Synodic Resonance (the conjunction of the solar planets) makes for MORE Sunspots ie hotter Sun. Pendulum clocks hung on the same wall, synchronise within minutes - similar to marching on a suspension bridge. Resonance means FAR greater effects than one would think in OSCILLATING systems.
Clouds need AEROSOLS (or cosmic rays) to form. We have done a great job at cleaning our air - London going from 200 counts in 1950, to just 15 today! John D. Maclean, Queensland Uni, an excellent scientist, has shown a 6.8% decrease in cloud cover 1986 to 2009, using satellite data.
Read his PhD and audit of HADCRUT4. Brilliant!

seabreezer
107 posts
Friday , 13 Sep 2019 7:15AM
Thumbs Up

agree - great post Ian K - some rational sense publications ...

% of co2 in TOTAL atmosphere ? .... 1 tenth of 1 % -
And nature is responsible for 97% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

We humans are responsible for 3% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

So even if we halved emmisions by basically stopping industrialisation - we would effect 1.5% of 1/10 of 1 percent ...

I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING

Also - co2 has a reflective component if reflecting sun output back out to space , as well trapping heat within ..

If you look at graphs going back Millions of YEARS - (not just using graphs from 1900 onwards that cherry pick your arguament for climate scaremongers) - THE PROOF IS C02 AND TEMPERATURE - ARE NOT CORRELATED ...

I feel theory - proven by longterm graphs ... that we are in a GRADUAL overall warming phase thats been going on the last 1000's of years

Its been said - if all the variables were understood , accounted for and inputed into a correct program - in the worlds most powerful computer - it would take 8 years of computing to spit out an answer ... so what chance does a single scientist with his computing brain power have in coming to correct conclusion using short term timelines (last 100 years) , using dodgy numbers , and more importantly DODGY models ... For christ sake the IPCC have ONLY JUST started trying to comprehend the effect of Solar flares and electro-magnetic outputs on our weather systems (read - creating storms ) - and effects global temps ...

The IPCC gravy train - reinforcing its ' written mandate' - if it reported - nothing to see here - but gradual warming - then they would all be looking for work , and all the associated funding of AGW scientists ...
Re trillions in the fossil fuel industry - What about the $$$ in renewables - looking to change the status quo ( and potentially funding an agenda ) .... And remember - various parts of the fossil fuel sector WANT to scaremonger over climate change - say GAS LNG - want to promote an made climate change - to take $$$ away from coal , into their sector ...

Also - how many $$$ of subsidies did Obama fund in FAILED renewable start-ups ... ?????????

If you look at graphs in below links - they show only 1 deg warming overall since 1950 - woopy do ....

www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

So , common sense thinking - We have dumped back into the atmosphere 1/4 of total c02 in the last 50 years - and seen .... wait for it .... 1deg of warming ,...... and to get the next degree of warming - we would have to dump back double the amount of co2 based on logarithmic effect of co2 ...

So climate scaremongers - who want to believe all the worst case scenerios / hollywood end of days scenerios and scare the hell out of our kids - fearmongering they have a dire future (what a hideous proposition to put into young minds) - WHAT would you prefer - global warming , or global cooling ? because for sure global status quo is NOT an option based on natural variablility of our planetary cycles ... ? Global warming = greening of the planet - more prosperous agriculture ..... Global cooling has historically meant food famines and societal collapse ...

And yes professors are getting sacked - look at below case - professor ~ great barrier reef ... I was watching a scientific presentation on barrier reef recently - and the scientist said the recent loss of (from memory but for arguments sake ) of something like 200 sq km of reef - was quickly reported - but what WASNT reported was that in the previous years the reef had added 2000 sq km of reef reformed / recovered .. or could have been 2000 vs 20000 - cant remember ... Coral reefs have been around billions of years - and survived through c02 levels WAY WAY WAY multiple times in excess of what we have now ...

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful

seabreezer
107 posts
Friday , 13 Sep 2019 7:27AM
Thumbs Up

@ logman .... so if you question science - its attention seeking behaviour ? .... 7032 attention seeking posts vs my 106 ????? .... wtf dude ... I must be really attn seeking ...

Ive got the feeling this AGW is quasi like the nutrition debate the last decades ... where scientists cherry picked their data and convinced the world that saturated fats caused heart disease / blocked your artuaries like a pipes plumbing scenerio !!! .... and convinced the world in repeated FLAWED studies that that was the case - and to eat low fat - avoid healthy fats , and .... fill the void with carbohydrates and sugar ... and here we are decades later with epidemic obesity and diabetes .... The dogma of low fat stayed ENTRENCHED for years propelled by media ... Im glad I question things personally ... and question the status quo ...

log man
VIC, 7050 posts
Friday , 13 Sep 2019 9:33AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
seabreezer said..
agree - great post Ian K - some rational sense publications ...

% of co2 in TOTAL atmosphere ? .... 1 tenth of 1 % -
And nature is responsible for 97% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

We humans are responsible for 3% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

So even if we halved emmisions by basically stopping industrialisation - we would effect 1.5% of 1/10 of 1 percent ...

I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING

Also - co2 has a reflective component if reflecting sun output back out to space , as well trapping heat within ..

If you look at graphs going back Millions of YEARS - (not just using graphs from 1900 onwards that cherry pick your arguament for climate scaremongers) - THE PROOF IS C02 AND TEMPERATURE - ARE NOT CORRELATED ...

I feel theory - proven by longterm graphs ... that we are in a GRADUAL overall warming phase thats been going on the last 1000's of years

Its been said - if all the variables were understood , accounted for and inputed into a correct program - in the worlds most powerful computer - it would take 8 years of computing to spit out an answer ... so what chance does a single scientist with his computing brain power have in coming to correct conclusion using short term timelines (last 100 years) , using dodgy numbers , and more importantly DODGY models ... For christ sake the IPCC have ONLY JUST started trying to comprehend the effect of Solar flares and electro-magnetic outputs on our weather systems (read - creating storms ) - and effects global temps ...

The IPCC gravy train - reinforcing its ' written mandate' - if it reported - nothing to see here - but gradual warming - then they would all be looking for work , and all the associated funding of AGW scientists ...
Re trillions in the fossil fuel industry - What about the $$$ in renewables - looking to change the status quo ( and potentially funding an agenda ) .... And remember - various parts of the fossil fuel sector WANT to scaremonger over climate change - say GAS LNG - want to promote an made climate change - to take $$$ away from coal , into their sector ...

Also - how many $$$ of subsidies did Obama fund in FAILED renewable start-ups ... ?????????

If you look at graphs in below links - they show only 1 deg warming overall since 1950 - woopy do ....

www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

So , common sense thinking - We have dumped back into the atmosphere 1/4 of total c02 in the last 50 years - and seen .... wait for it .... 1deg of warming ,...... and to get the next degree of warming - we would have to dump back double the amount of co2 based on logarithmic effect of co2 ...

So climate scaremongers - who want to believe all the worst case scenerios / hollywood end of days scenerios and scare the hell out of our kids - fearmongering they have a dire future (what a hideous proposition to put into young minds) - WHAT would you prefer - global warming , or global cooling ? because for sure global status quo is NOT an option based on natural variablility of our planetary cycles ... ? Global warming = greening of the planet - more prosperous agriculture ..... Global cooling has historically meant food famines and societal collapse ...

And yes professors are getting sacked - look at below case - professor ~ great barrier reef ... I was watching a scientific presentation on barrier reef recently - and the scientist said the recent loss of (from memory but for arguments sake ) of something like 200 sq km of reef - was quickly reported - but what WASNT reported was that in the previous years the reef had added 2000 sq km of reef reformed / recovered .. or could have been 2000 vs 20000 - cant remember ... Coral reefs have been around billions of years - and survived through c02 levels WAY WAY WAY multiple times in excess of what we have now ...

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful


wow, coral reefs, Obama........that's a mad womans breakfast.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Heat from the sun" started by bjw