Climate Change! Cows and Cars or maybe something else.
Rob Driver said
05:42 PM Nov 20, 2021
Another recent topic started with the fores and againsts EVs and soon went on a tangent to climate change so I would like to present this explanation from NASA as to the positive side of the reason for climate change.
Definitely something to consider before we blame the poor old cow.
Makes a lot more sense than some of the half baked ideas climate scientists come up with.
-- Edited by Santa on Saturday 20th of November 2021 06:17:29 PM
TheHeaths said
06:21 PM Nov 20, 2021
Id hardly consider the site that comes from as unbiased!
Santa said
07:09 PM Nov 20, 2021
This is all very interesting.
Temperature Over Time
What Causes Temperature Change Over Geologic Time?
Human civilization advanced over the past 8,000 years during a relatively constant and favorable climate. However, Earth's climate has not always been so constant and favorable for humans. Global mean temperature (GMT) has been 8° to 15°C warmer than today with polar areas free of ice, and GMT has been 5° to 15°C (40 to 60°F) cooler in mid-latitudes with continental glaciers some as thick as 1 mile covering areas as far south as New York City.
The Discovery of Glacial Periods
Nearly two centuries ago, naturalists wondered how large boulders could end up in odd places, like river valleys and plains. They knew that the boulders were too massive to be transported by rivers. Louis Agassiz (1807-1983) was a young professor who studied fossil fish. He proposed that a giant ice sheet once covered large areas of Earth. His classic Studies on Glaciers (1840) gave rise to a new field of research.
The Causes of Glaciation
Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958) was a Serbian mathematician who, for more than 25 years, worked on producing the first numerical estimates of the effect of variations in Earth's orbit on the latitudinal and seasonal variations in solar radiation. Today, his theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the cause of glaciations. The Milankovitch Theory explains the 3 cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and tilt that cause the climate fluctuations occuring over tens of thousands of years to hundreds of thousands of years. These fluctuations include changes in the shape (eccentricity) of Earth's orbit, the tilt (obliquity) of Earth's axis, and the wobbling (precession) of Earth's axis.
First, Earth's orbit can be nearly circular, as it is presently, or more elliptical. This orbital change from circular to more elongated, is known as eccentricity and takes about 100,000 years to go from nearly circular to elliptical and back to nearly circular in shape. When the orbit is more circular, as it is now, there is less variation in the distance between the sun and Earth. When the orbit is more elliptical, glaciation is affected by the time of year (season) that Earth is closest to the sun.
The second change is in the tilt of Earth's axis, known as obliquity, which varies between 22.1° and 24.5° every 41,000 years. As you have learned, Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.5°. When the tilt is less, the winters are not as cold and the summers are not as warm. Warmer air can hold more water vapor and therefore, produce more snow during the winter months. Because the summers are not as warm, the previous winter's snow does not melt. This promotes glacier formation.
The third change is in Earth's axis. Each 24 hours, Earth rotates once around its imaginary axis. About every 23,000 years, the axis itself also makes a complete circle or precession, causing Earth to wobble. This wobble, causes Earth to be closer to the sun in July instead of January and intensifies the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Because the Northern Hemisphere has more landmasses at higher latitudes where ice sheets can form and grow, the position of this hemisphere is important.
The interplay of these three cyclical changes affects the amount of solar radiation that Earth receives at different latitudes and during different seasons. Currently, we are in a period of relatively small variations in solar radiation, and scientists do not predict a new ice age for 50,000 years.
Rob Driver said
07:34 PM Nov 20, 2021
TheHeaths wrote:
Id hardly consider the site that comes from as unbiased!
Probably no more or less than any other site depending on an individuals agenda.
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:08 PM Nov 21, 2021
Santa wrote:
This is all very interesting.
Temperature Over Time
What Causes Temperature Change Over Geologic Time?
Human civilization advanced over the past 8,000 years during a relatively constant and favorable climate. However, Earth's climate has not always been so constant and favorable for humans. Global mean temperature (GMT) has been 8° to 15°C warmer than today with polar areas free of ice, and GMT has been 5° to 15°C (40 to 60°F) cooler in mid-latitudes with continental glaciers some as thick as 1 mile covering areas as far south as New York City.
The Discovery of Glacial Periods
Nearly two centuries ago, naturalists wondered how large boulders could end up in odd places, like river valleys and plains. They knew that the boulders were too massive to be transported by rivers. Louis Agassiz (1807-1983) was a young professor who studied fossil fish. He proposed that a giant ice sheet once covered large areas of Earth. His classic Studies on Glaciers (1840) gave rise to a new field of research.
The Causes of Glaciation
Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958) was a Serbian mathematician who, for more than 25 years, worked on producing the first numerical estimates of the effect of variations in Earth's orbit on the latitudinal and seasonal variations in solar radiation. Today, his theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the cause of glaciations. The Milankovitch Theory explains the 3 cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and tilt that cause the climate fluctuations occuring over tens of thousands of years to hundreds of thousands of years. These fluctuations include changes in the shape (eccentricity) of Earth's orbit, the tilt (obliquity) of Earth's axis, and the wobbling (precession) of Earth's axis.
First, Earth's orbit can be nearly circular, as it is presently, or more elliptical. This orbital change from circular to more elongated, is known as eccentricity and takes about 100,000 years to go from nearly circular to elliptical and back to nearly circular in shape. When the orbit is more circular, as it is now, there is less variation in the distance between the sun and Earth. When the orbit is more elliptical, glaciation is affected by the time of year (season) that Earth is closest to the sun.
The second change is in the tilt of Earth's axis, known as obliquity, which varies between 22.1° and 24.5° every 41,000 years. As you have learned, Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.5°. When the tilt is less, the winters are not as cold and the summers are not as warm. Warmer air can hold more water vapor and therefore, produce more snow during the winter months. Because the summers are not as warm, the previous winter's snow does not melt. This promotes glacier formation.
The third change is in Earth's axis. Each 24 hours, Earth rotates once around its imaginary axis. About every 23,000 years, the axis itself also makes a complete circle or precession, causing Earth to wobble. This wobble, causes Earth to be closer to the sun in July instead of January and intensifies the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Because the Northern Hemisphere has more landmasses at higher latitudes where ice sheets can form and grow, the position of this hemisphere is important.
The interplay of these three cyclical changes affects the amount of solar radiation that Earth receives at different latitudes and during different seasons. Currently, we are in a period of relatively small variations in solar radiation, and scientists do not predict a new ice age for 50,000 years.
Notice the 'tens of thousands of years' or 'hundreds of thousands of years' for the effect. This allows time for biodiversity to evolve whereas human induced climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels, has occurred in the last two hundred years and exponentially in the last few decades. Biodiversity has no time to adapt in that short period.
Rob Driver said
04:13 PM Nov 21, 2021
Hey Buzz,
The world has given birth to thousands of scientists who now all claim to be experts in climate change within the last ten years, yet you discredit scientific fact.
From the NASA observations which actually began in 1958:
*In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity.
This information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why [people with shady agendas] have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earths changing climate patterns.*
Truth, scientific studies and proven results, might be just a better source of information to base a decision on wether or not to cause our children to pay mega dollars to the unknown and unproven dreams of groups with their own agenda of financial gain.
Remember that when there exists a decision involving investment, always, follow the money.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:14:14 PM
Rob Driver said
04:22 PM Nov 21, 2021
suengreg posted this on another topic.
Boy is this going to bum out Greta and Gore: Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born 12 February 1946 Residence Australia
Nationality Australian Fields Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions University of New England ,Newcastle, University, University Alma mater University of New South Wales ,Macquarie University
Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004) Source. Wikipedia
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
EXCLUSIVE: Professor Ian Plimer's new book ... - Advance [Search domain advanc eaustralia.org.au] www.advanceaustralia.org.au exclusive_professor_ian_plimer_s_new_book_green_murder_is_the_wake_up_call_we_need Enter Professor Ian Plimer. Not only is Professor Plimer one of Australia's most renowned and respected geologists and mining entrepreneurs, but he's a rare breed of intellect - one with the decency and guts to call out the fraudulent nature of "climate science" and the subversive agendas of those who fund it.
__________________
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information. I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:29:46 PM
peter67 said
06:26 PM Nov 21, 2021
There was a qualified investigation into whole groups of so called climate scientists years ago, can't remember the name of the program now but the wash up was that scientists from other fields were all jumping on the Global Warming (as it was then called) gravy train because it was so well funded. And the more people you can scare, the more money you get to FUND finding the "solution".
I think that is a growing trend when scientists from other, perhaps, underfunded institutions jump on board the gravy train and try to out scare each other :). A bit like the instant experts bought in for commentary by main stream tv media over the latest airline crash/latest crash diet fad gone wrong/since when did the Jerry Springer Show get cancelled etc type of mumbo jumbo.
Santa said
06:45 PM Nov 21, 2021
Ian Plimer is a controversial figure, climate change believers reckon he is the devil incarnate, deniers think he's the bee's knees.
I like him, his science makes a lot more sense than some of the wacko ideas promoted by the current crop of drum beaters.
yobarr said
07:11 PM Nov 21, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
suengreg posted this on another topic.
Boy is this going to bum out Greta and Gore: Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Born 12 February 1946 Residence Australia Nationality Australian Fields Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering Institutions University of New England ,Newcastle, University, University Alma mater University of New South Wales ,Macquarie University Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976) Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004) Source. Wikipedia Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it. Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
EXCLUSIVE: Professor Ian Plimer's new book ... - Advance [Search domain advanc eaustralia.org.au] www.advanceaustralia.org.au exclusive_professor_ian_plimer_s_new_book_green_murder_is_the_wake_up_call_we_need Enter Professor Ian Plimer. Not only is Professor Plimer one of Australia's most renowned and respected geologists and mining entrepreneurs, but he's a rare breed of intellect - one with the decency and guts to call out the fraudulent nature of "climate science" and the subversive agendas of those who fund it. __________________
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information. I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
All day I had been searching for this article,which I had previously read,to support my comment that Climate Change is a con-job.Probably too many home truths contained within for the more gullible to comprehend,but at least it is now out there. Indisputable. Thanks Greg.(and Rob!) Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 21st of November 2021 07:52:41 PM
-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:20:27 PM
Are We Lost said
08:40 PM Nov 21, 2021
Buzz has been very vocal (on other threads) with his FACTS.
I have a question for Buzz and others who believe we should be taking serious action ...... What is the business case? FACTS please.
No business would commit to expenditure without the business case making sense. Yet many thousands of businesses and individuals are being asked to make their respective contibutions, one way or another. Yet I have never seen anything that quantifies what the result will be, other than in reducing emissions. What about actual results with temperature.
So, if we in Australia achieve everything Greta, et al are asking for, what will be the result of Australia's contribution ?
Buzz, or anyone else..... What is the Australian business case? What will our best efforts achieve in temperature reduction, or even in slowing of temperature increase?
(For the record, I am not a denier, but believe there are more urgent global issue that we should be focusing on).
Peter_n_Margaret said
08:59 PM Nov 21, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information. I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:37:00 PM
Rob Driver said
09:38 PM Nov 21, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Rob Driver wrote:
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information. I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
The question in your link is subjective to other factors. Easy to have the information claimed as false when the statement was for one volcanoe. We can all see why all global warming and C02 claimants discredit Plimer and NASA
How about 48 volcanoes as listed in the link below. All very recent records.
We may argue that any C02 tests carried out to support man made pollution C02 figures is attributed not to the industrial revolution, but to the existence of active volcanoes. We may argue that any global warming is not caused by the industrial revolution, but by the facts pointed out and proven by Milankovitch.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:37:00 PM
Me too! unlike all the others here who only talk about doing something, about climate change, at exactly 12pm today I did my bit for climate change. Turned the Engle down to zero and loaded the beer fridge. Now that's my kinda climate :)
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:14 PM Nov 22, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Hey Buzz,
The world has given birth to thousands of scientists who now all claim to be experts in climate change within the last ten years, yet you discredit scientific fact.
From the NASA observations which actually began in 1958:
*In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity.
This information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why [people with shady agendas] have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earths changing climate patterns.*
Truth, scientific studies and proven results, might be just a better source of information to base a decision on wether or not to cause our children to pay mega dollars to the unknown and unproven dreams of groups with their own agenda of financial gain.
Remember that when there exists a decision involving investment, always, follow the money.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:14:14 PM
I'm not discrediting the scientific fact. I agree with the Milankovitch theory. What I said was:
"Notice the 'tens of thousands of years' or 'hundreds of thousands of years' for the effect. This allows time for biodiversity to evolve whereas human induced climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels, has occurred in the last two hundred years and exponentially in the last few decades. Biodiversity has no time to adapt in that short period."
That does not, as you say 'discredit scientific fact'. It identifies that climate deniers will grasp any little bit of evidence to support their beliefs and at the same time mentally filter out the details that contradict their beliefs.
According to the Milankovitch theory we should be heading into the start of an ice age but because of the effects of CO2e emissions causing climate change, human activity is reversing that ice age.
You can't even see the truth in the theory that you yourself have proposed. Typical climate denying psychology.
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:51 PM Nov 22, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
suengreg posted this on another topic.
Boy is this going to bum out Greta and Gore: Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born 12 February 1946 Residence Australia
Nationality Australian Fields Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions University of New England ,Newcastle, University, University Alma mater University of New South Wales ,Macquarie University
Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004) Source. Wikipedia
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
EXCLUSIVE: Professor Ian Plimer's new book ... - Advance [Search domain advanc eaustralia.org.au] www.advanceaustralia.org.au exclusive_professor_ian_plimer_s_new_book_green_murder_is_the_wake_up_call_we_need Enter Professor Ian Plimer. Not only is Professor Plimer one of Australia's most renowned and respected geologists and mining entrepreneurs, but he's a rare breed of intellect - one with the decency and guts to call out the fraudulent nature of "climate science" and the subversive agendas of those who fund it.
__________________
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information. I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:29:46 PM
I hadn't heard of Professor Ian Pilmer so I had a quick search. Apparently he has been debunked:
He misquoted the satellite data; he's not a climate scientist; his start date was the hottest year. If he used any other year one would see that the global temperatures have risen and the USGS says he's wrong about the volcanoes:
He's also non-executive director or non-executive chairman of several mining companies and has major shares in mining companies and has earned over $400,000 from these companies. One wonders does he have a impartial, unbiased interest in the mining industry or is there a conflict of interest?
I could go on and show a lot more links debunking Plimer but the climate deniers won't be convinced until they realise the psychological reasons why they are deniers.
Climate deniers, ask yourself this, 'How reliable is this source of information?'. He's an eminent geologist but he's not a climate scientist and I have been told on another thread that if I'm not a climate scientist then my opinion doesn't matter. Doesn't this also apply to Plimer?
Also, why did he write a book instead of a peer reviewed, scientific paper? Probably because no climate scientists would peer review the misinformation. Also, one sells books but usually not scientific papers. Is Plimer cashing in on the climate deniers who are desperate to have something that supports their beliefs?
If you honestly answer these questions and read the above hypertext links, you'll probably question Plimer's credentials and motives. If not, then you're still having trouble overcoming the psychological problems of the world being destroyed
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:17:13 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:55 PM Nov 22, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
Buzz has been very vocal (on other threads) with his FACTS.
I have a question for Buzz and others who believe we should be taking serious action ...... What is the business case? FACTS please.
No business would commit to expenditure without the business case making sense. Yet many thousands of businesses and individuals are being asked to make their respective contibutions, one way or another. Yet I have never seen anything that quantifies what the result will be, other than in reducing emissions. What about actual results with temperature.
So, if we in Australia achieve everything Greta, et al are asking for, what will be the result of Australia's contribution ?
Buzz, or anyone else..... What is the Australian business case? What will our best efforts achieve in temperature reduction, or even in slowing of temperature increase?
(For the record, I am not a denier, but believe there are more urgent global issue that we should be focusing on).
This has been pointed out many, many times before. It costs more to fix the problem than it costs to prevent it. Selfish businesses will reap the benefits now and not consider what needs to be done to fix the problem. 'Make money now and let the future generations pay the costs to fix IT.
I've also explained how a carbon tax works, how the world benefits from a carbon tax and how Australia would benefit if it applied a national climate tax. Reread it please.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:19:30 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:58 PM Nov 22, 2021
TheHeaths wrote:
Climate Change!
I love this subject.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:37:00 PM
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
yobarr said
01:02 PM Nov 22, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Climate Change!
I love this subject.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
What rubbish,but it seems that you are not alone in LaLa land.Cheers
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:34 PM Nov 22, 2021
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
What rubbish,but it seems that you are not alone in LaLa land.Cheers
If he is wrong and you are right, so what? The world will just be a bit better.
And if he is right and you are wrong, what is your "Plan B"?
Cheers,
Peter
TheHeaths said
01:40 PM Nov 22, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
What rubbish,but it seems that you are not alone in LaLa land.Cheers
If he is wrong and you are right, so what? The world will just be a bit better.
And if he is right and you are wrong, what is your "Plan B"?
Cheers,
Peter
I agree with your point Peter. Efforts to improve our environment and life are NEVER wasted.
Whether it is needed or not, improvements in water and air quality, temperature outcomes, social matters and life quality in general are something to aim for.
We all benefit.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 22nd of November 2021 01:41:46 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:28 PM Nov 22, 2021
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Climate Change!
I love this subject.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
What rubbish,but it seems that you are not alone in LaLa land.Cheers
Homo sapiens can't survive long in temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius and 100% humidity. The body will perspire to cool itself to 36.9 degrees but because of the humidity the sweat doesn't evaporate and the cooling process doesn't work. A person in that situation needs to seek shelter or a breeze to reduce the temperature or assist evaporation. We are rapidly heading to situations where the outdoors will have those conditions.
There have been thousands of deaths due to heat waves and this effect, but please, you seem to have made your own investigations, show me where that is wrong?
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:36 PM Nov 22, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
(For the record, I am not a denier, but believe there are more urgent global issue that we should be focusing on).
@Rob,
You certainly demonstrate the characteristics of a climate denier. You continually refuse to see the bigger picture, you persistently concentrate on one small aspect, you present arguments that climate deniers present but you won't see that those arguments don't support what you hope to prove.
You certainly sound like a climate denier or, if you do believe in climate change, you are certainly presenting an anti-climate point of view. Is that just to make a profit because your business might be affected? The latter seems a bit selfish.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:54:06 PM
dogbox said
03:28 PM Nov 22, 2021
dear BUZZ the fact that you use large print make you appear very aggressive
Are We Lost said
07:05 PM Nov 22, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
(For the record, I am not a denier, but believe there are more urgent global issue that we should be focusing on).
@Rob,
You certainly demonstrate the characteristics of a climate denier. You continually refuse to see the bigger picture, you persistently concentrate on one small aspect, you present arguments that climate deniers present but you won't see that those arguments don't support what you hope to prove.
You certainly sound like a climate denier or, if you do believe in climate change, you are certainly presenting an anti-climate point of view. Is that just to make a profit because your business might be affected? The latter seems a bit selfish.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:54:06 PM
I am not Rob and have not continually or persistently voiced my opinion on climate change. I do believe the climate is getting warmer, and probably humanity has contributed to that. Please show me where I have said anything that contradicts that.
My comment is that Australia can make negligible change. With 96% of emissions being natural, and Australia producing 1% of the humanity produced emissions, it is impossible for our efforts to achieve anything meaningful, except by setting an example (for the biggest polluters to ignore). To me population growth is the root cause of the emissions growth from humanity, and starvation due to popoulation growth is affecting millions now. That is what we should be focusing on.
Hence my question to you ....
What will our efforts actually achieve? You have shouted FACTS several times, but can you answer that simple question with such a fact?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 22nd of November 2021 07:09:57 PM
dorian said
08:37 PM Nov 22, 2021
Professor Driver, what is it about the concept of "geologic time" that is so difficult for you to comprehend? Instead of quoting nonsense from wacko web sites, read what NASA's article has to say. After all, it is NASA's article that forms the basis for your misguided rant, so it's only logical that we examine it.
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate:
Even after a cursory reading of NASA's article, it is evident that Edward Morgan (the author of "NASA: "Climate Change" Caused by Changes in Earth's Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt, Not Man-Made Causes") has no idea what it all means. In fact all we need to know is that there are three Milankovitch cycles - the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the obliquity (or tilt) of the earth's axis, and the precession (wobble) of the earth's axis. These cycles span tens of thousands of years. The average global temperature during the Ice Ages was 8 degC. Today it is 15C. Let's say that the total temperature variation between the geologic extremes was 20C. That's probably double what it really was. Over a period of 10000 years that represents a change of 1 degC in 500 years. We expect to achieve that same increase in 20 years.
Here are the salient points in NASA's article, as I see them:
"When Earth's orbit is at its most elliptic, about 23 percent more incoming solar radiation reaches Earth at our planet's closest approach to the Sun each year than does at its farthest departure from the Sun. Currently, Earth's eccentricity is near its least elliptic (most circular) and is very slowly decreasing, in a cycle that spans about 100,000 years."
"The total change in global annual insolation due to the eccentricity cycle is very small. Because variations in Earth's eccentricity are fairly small, they're a relatively minor factor in annual seasonal climate variations."
So eccentricity is at its minimum at the present time.
"The angle Earth's axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. The greater Earth's axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away."
"Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers ..."
So the earth's obliquity is currently decreasing, which means that seasons will become progressively milder over the next 10000 years.
"Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Currently perihelion occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere and in summer in the Southern Hemisphere. This makes Southern Hemisphere summers hotter and moderates Northern Hemisphere seasonal variations. But in about 13,000 years, axial precession will cause these conditions to flip, with the Northern Hemisphere seeing more extremes in solar radiation and the Southern Hemisphere experiencing more moderate seasonal variations."
As I understand it, precession doesn't affect global warming, it merely affects the relative seasonal extremes between the northern and southern hemispheres. In 13000 years the Americans will get our weather and we'll get theirs.
Here is NASA's own explanation why these cycles are essentially irrelevant to us today.
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming:
-- Edited by dorian on Tuesday 23rd of November 2021 04:35:05 AM
dorian said
04:51 AM Nov 23, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
I hadn't heard of Professor Ian Pilmer so I had a quick search. Apparently he has been debunked:
He misquoted the satellite data; he's not a climate scientist; his start date was the hottest year. If he used any other year one would see that the global temperatures have risen and the USGS says he's wrong about the volcanoes:
He's also non-executive director or non-executive chairman of several mining companies and has major shares in mining companies and has earned over $400,000 from these companies. One wonders does he have a impartial, unbiased interest in the mining industry or is there a conflict of interest?
I could go on and show a lot more links debunking Plimer but the climate deniers won't be convinced until they realise the psychological reasons why they are deniers.
Climate deniers, ask yourself this, 'How reliable is this source of information?'. He's an eminent geologist but he's not a climate scientist and I have been told on another thread that if I'm not a climate scientist then my opinion doesn't matter. Doesn't this also apply to Plimer?
Well said.
-- Edited by dorian on Tuesday 23rd of November 2021 05:26:36 AM
dorian said
07:00 AM Nov 23, 2021
Here is a review of Plimer's book, "Heaven and Earth", by an astronomer:
"Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled 'The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass'. This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."
Another recent topic started with the fores and againsts EVs and soon went on a tangent to climate change so I would like to present this explanation from NASA as to the positive side of the reason for climate change.
Definitely something to consider before we blame the poor old cow.
https://prepareforchange.net/2019/09/15/nasa-climate-change-caused-by-changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-not-man-made-causes/
Makes a lot more sense than some of the half baked ideas climate scientists come up with.
-- Edited by Santa on Saturday 20th of November 2021 06:17:29 PM
This is all very interesting.
Temperature Over Time
What Causes Temperature Change Over Geologic Time?
Human civilization advanced over the past 8,000 years during a relatively constant and favorable climate. However, Earth's climate has not always been so constant and favorable for humans. Global mean temperature (GMT) has been 8° to 15°C warmer than today with polar areas free of ice, and GMT has been 5° to 15°C (40 to 60°F) cooler in mid-latitudes with continental glaciers some as thick as 1 mile covering areas as far south as New York City.
The Discovery of Glacial Periods
Nearly two centuries ago, naturalists wondered how large boulders could end up in odd places, like river valleys and plains. They knew that the boulders were too massive to be transported by rivers. Louis Agassiz (1807-1983) was a young professor who studied fossil fish. He proposed that a giant ice sheet once covered large areas of Earth. His classic Studies on Glaciers (1840) gave rise to a new field of research.
The Causes of Glaciation
First, Earth's orbit can be nearly circular, as it is presently, or more elliptical. This orbital change from circular to more elongated, is known as eccentricity and takes about 100,000 years to go from nearly circular to elliptical and back to nearly circular in shape. When the orbit is more circular, as it is now, there is less variation in the distance between the sun and Earth. When the orbit is more elliptical, glaciation is affected by the time of year (season) that Earth is closest to the sun.
The second change is in the tilt of Earth's axis, known as obliquity, which varies between 22.1° and 24.5° every 41,000 years. As you have learned, Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.5°. When the tilt is less, the winters are not as cold and the summers are not as warm. Warmer air can hold more water vapor and therefore, produce more snow during the winter months. Because the summers are not as warm, the previous winter's snow does not melt. This promotes glacier formation.
The third change is in Earth's axis. Each 24 hours, Earth rotates once around its imaginary axis. About every 23,000 years, the axis itself also makes a complete circle or precession, causing Earth to wobble. This wobble, causes Earth to be closer to the sun in July instead of January and intensifies the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Because the Northern Hemisphere has more landmasses at higher latitudes where ice sheets can form and grow, the position of this hemisphere is important.
The interplay of these three cyclical changes affects the amount of solar radiation that Earth receives at different latitudes and during different seasons. Currently, we are in a period of relatively small variations in solar radiation, and scientists do not predict a new ice age for 50,000 years.
Probably no more or less than any other site depending on an individuals agenda.
Notice the 'tens of thousands of years' or 'hundreds of thousands of years' for the effect. This allows time for biodiversity to evolve whereas human induced climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels, has occurred in the last two hundred years and exponentially in the last few decades. Biodiversity has no time to adapt in that short period.
Hey Buzz,
The world has given birth to thousands of scientists who now all claim to be experts in climate change within the last ten years, yet you discredit scientific fact.
From the NASA observations which actually began in 1958:
*In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity.
This information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why [people with shady agendas] have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earths changing climate patterns.*
Truth, scientific studies and proven results, might be just a better source of information to base a decision on wether or not to cause our children to pay mega dollars to the unknown and unproven dreams of groups with their own agenda of financial gain.
Remember that when there exists a decision involving investment, always, follow the money.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:14:14 PM
suengreg posted this on another topic.
Boy is this going to bum out Greta and Gore:
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,
professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.
He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born 12 February 1946
Residence Australia
Nationality Australian
Fields Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions University of New England ,Newcastle, University, University
Alma mater
University of New South Wales ,Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal
(2004)
Source. Wikipedia
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
EXCLUSIVE: Professor Ian Plimer's new book ... - Advance
[Search domain advanc eaustralia.org.au] www.advanceaustralia.org.au exclusive_professor_ian_plimer_s_new_book_green_murder_is_the_wake_up_call_we_need
Enter Professor Ian Plimer. Not only is Professor Plimer one of Australia's most renowned and respected geologists and mining entrepreneurs, but he's a rare breed of intellect - one with the decency and guts to call out the fraudulent nature of "climate science" and the subversive agendas of those who fund it.
__________________
Thanks to suengreg for providing such relevant and accurate information.
I would imagine that volcanic eruptions would be our major contributor to C02 in our atmosphere.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Sunday 21st of November 2021 04:29:46 PM
I think that is a growing trend when scientists from other, perhaps, underfunded institutions jump on board the gravy train and try to out scare each other :). A bit like the instant experts bought in for commentary by main stream tv media over the latest airline crash/latest crash diet fad gone wrong/since when did the Jerry Springer Show get cancelled etc type of mumbo jumbo.
Ian Plimer is a controversial figure, climate change believers reckon he is the devil incarnate, deniers think he's the bee's knees.
I like him, his science makes a lot more sense than some of the wacko ideas promoted by the current crop of drum beaters.
All day I had been searching for this article,which I had previously read,to support my comment that Climate Change is a con-job.Probably too many home truths contained within for the more gullible to comprehend,but at least it is now out there. Indisputable. Thanks Greg.(and Rob!) Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 21st of November 2021 07:52:41 PM
-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:20:27 PM
Buzz has been very vocal (on other threads) with his FACTS.
I have a question for Buzz and others who believe we should be taking serious action ...... What is the business case? FACTS please.
No business would commit to expenditure without the business case making sense. Yet many thousands of businesses and individuals are being asked to make their respective contibutions, one way or another. Yet I have never seen anything that quantifies what the result will be, other than in reducing emissions. What about actual results with temperature.
So, if we in Australia achieve everything Greta, et al are asking for, what will be the result of Australia's contribution ?
Buzz, or anyone else..... What is the Australian business case? What will our best efforts achieve in temperature reduction, or even in slowing of temperature increase?
(For the record, I am not a denier, but believe there are more urgent global issue that we should be focusing on).
Does a Single Volcanic Eruption Release as Much CO2 As All of Humanity Has to Date? | Snopes.com
Cheers,
peter
Climate Change!
I love this subject.
My experts a real expert, and yours is a fool. Says both sides! I wonder which side gets to say I told you so in 100 years?
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:37:00 PM
Hi Peter,
The question in your link is subjective to other factors. Easy to have the information claimed as false when the statement was for one volcanoe.
We can all see why all global warming and C02 claimants discredit Plimer and NASA
How about 48 volcanoes as listed in the link below. All very recent records.
We may argue that any C02 tests carried out to support man made pollution C02 figures is attributed not to the industrial revolution, but to the existence of active volcanoes.
We may argue that any global warming is not caused by the industrial revolution, but by the facts pointed out and proven by Milankovitch.
https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_currenteruptions.cfm
Me too! unlike all the others here who only talk about doing something, about climate change, at exactly 12pm today I did my bit for climate change. Turned the Engle down to zero and loaded the beer fridge. Now that's my kinda climate :)
I'm not discrediting the scientific fact. I agree with the Milankovitch theory. What I said was:
"Notice the 'tens of thousands of years' or 'hundreds of thousands of years' for the effect. This allows time for biodiversity to evolve whereas human induced climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels, has occurred in the last two hundred years and exponentially in the last few decades. Biodiversity has no time to adapt in that short period."
That does not, as you say 'discredit scientific fact'. It identifies that climate deniers will grasp any little bit of evidence to support their beliefs and at the same time mentally filter out the details that contradict their beliefs.
According to the Milankovitch theory we should be heading into the start of an ice age but because of the effects of CO2e emissions causing climate change, human activity is reversing that ice age.
You can't even see the truth in the theory that you yourself have proposed. Typical climate denying psychology.
I hadn't heard of Professor Ian Pilmer so I had a quick search. Apparently he has been debunked:
He misquoted the satellite data; he's not a climate scientist; his start date was the hottest year. If he used any other year one would see that the global temperatures have risen and the USGS says he's wrong about the volcanoes:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
He's also non-executive director or non-executive chairman of several mining companies and has major shares in mining companies and has earned over $400,000 from these companies. One wonders does he have a impartial, unbiased interest in the mining industry or is there a conflict of interest?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ian_Plimer
https://www.truthorfiction.com/plimer-volcano/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/op-ed-in-the-australian-gets-nearly-every-fact-wrong-ian-plimer/
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
https://www.greenecoservices.com/fact-checking-ian-plimer-misinformation-is-circulating-again/
This article is very interesting because it debunks many myths the climate deniers believe:
https://skepticalscience.com/101-responses-Ian-Plimer-climate-questions.html
I could go on and show a lot more links debunking Plimer but the climate deniers won't be convinced until they realise the psychological reasons why they are deniers.
Climate deniers, ask yourself this, 'How reliable is this source of information?'. He's an eminent geologist but he's not a climate scientist and I have been told on another thread that if I'm not a climate scientist then my opinion doesn't matter. Doesn't this also apply to Plimer?
Also, why did he write a book instead of a peer reviewed, scientific paper? Probably because no climate scientists would peer review the misinformation. Also, one sells books but usually not scientific papers. Is Plimer cashing in on the climate deniers who are desperate to have something that supports their beliefs?
If you honestly answer these questions and read the above hypertext links, you'll probably question Plimer's credentials and motives. If not, then you're still having trouble overcoming the psychological problems of the world being destroyed
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:17:13 PM
This has been pointed out many, many times before. It costs more to fix the problem than it costs to prevent it. Selfish businesses will reap the benefits now and not consider what needs to be done to fix the problem. 'Make money now and let the future generations pay the costs to fix IT.
I've also explained how a carbon tax works, how the world benefits from a carbon tax and how Australia would benefit if it applied a national climate tax. Reread it please.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:19:30 PM
It won't take a hundred years at the rate we're going. You might die before it's impossible to enjoy the outdoors but the next generation won't be able to survive outdoors.
What rubbish,but it seems that you are not alone in LaLa land.Cheers
If he is wrong and you are right, so what? The world will just be a bit better.
And if he is right and you are wrong, what is your "Plan B"?
Cheers,
Peter
I agree with your point Peter. Efforts to improve our environment and life are NEVER wasted.
Whether it is needed or not, improvements in water and air quality, temperature outcomes, social matters and life quality in general are something to aim for.
We all benefit.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 22nd of November 2021 01:41:46 PM
Homo sapiens can't survive long in temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius and 100% humidity. The body will perspire to cool itself to 36.9 degrees but because of the humidity the sweat doesn't evaporate and the cooling process doesn't work. A person in that situation needs to seek shelter or a breeze to reduce the temperature or assist evaporation. We are rapidly heading to situations where the outdoors will have those conditions.
There have been thousands of deaths due to heat waves and this effect, but please, you seem to have made your own investigations, show me where that is wrong?
@Rob,
You certainly demonstrate the characteristics of a climate denier. You continually refuse to see the bigger picture, you persistently concentrate on one small aspect, you present arguments that climate deniers present but you won't see that those arguments don't support what you hope to prove.
You certainly sound like a climate denier or, if you do believe in climate change, you are certainly presenting an anti-climate point of view. Is that just to make a profit because your business might be affected? The latter seems a bit selfish.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 22nd of November 2021 02:54:06 PM
I am not Rob and have not continually or persistently voiced my opinion on climate change. I do believe the climate is getting warmer, and probably humanity has contributed to that. Please show me where I have said anything that contradicts that.
My comment is that Australia can make negligible change. With 96% of emissions being natural, and Australia producing 1% of the humanity produced emissions, it is impossible for our efforts to achieve anything meaningful, except by setting an example (for the biggest polluters to ignore). To me population growth is the root cause of the emissions growth from humanity, and starvation due to popoulation growth is affecting millions now. That is what we should be focusing on.
Hence my question to you ....
What will our efforts actually achieve? You have shouted FACTS several times, but can you answer that simple question with such a fact?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 22nd of November 2021 07:09:57 PM
Professor Driver, what is it about the concept of "geologic time" that is so difficult for you to comprehend? Instead of quoting nonsense from wacko web sites, read what NASA's article has to say. After all, it is NASA's article that forms the basis for your misguided rant, so it's only logical that we examine it.
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Even after a cursory reading of NASA's article, it is evident that Edward Morgan (the author of "NASA: "Climate Change" Caused by Changes in Earth's Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt, Not Man-Made Causes") has no idea what it all means. In fact all we need to know is that there are three Milankovitch cycles - the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the obliquity (or tilt) of the earth's axis, and the precession (wobble) of the earth's axis. These cycles span tens of thousands of years. The average global temperature during the Ice Ages was 8 degC. Today it is 15C. Let's say that the total temperature variation between the geologic extremes was 20C. That's probably double what it really was. Over a period of 10000 years that represents a change of 1 degC in 500 years. We expect to achieve that same increase in 20 years.
Here are the salient points in NASA's article, as I see them:
"When Earth's orbit is at its most elliptic, about 23 percent more incoming solar radiation reaches Earth at our planet's closest approach to the Sun each year than does at its farthest departure from the Sun. Currently, Earth's eccentricity is near its least elliptic (most circular) and is very slowly decreasing, in a cycle that spans about 100,000 years."
"The total change in global annual insolation due to the eccentricity cycle is very small. Because variations in Earth's eccentricity are fairly small, they're a relatively minor factor in annual seasonal climate variations."
So eccentricity is at its minimum at the present time.
"The angle Earth's axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. The greater Earth's axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away."
"Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers ..."
So the earth's obliquity is currently decreasing, which means that seasons will become progressively milder over the next 10000 years.
"Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Currently perihelion occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere and in summer in the Southern Hemisphere. This makes Southern Hemisphere summers hotter and moderates Northern Hemisphere seasonal variations. But in about 13,000 years, axial precession will cause these conditions to flip, with the Northern Hemisphere seeing more extremes in solar radiation and the Southern Hemisphere experiencing more moderate seasonal variations."
As I understand it, precession doesn't affect global warming, it merely affects the relative seasonal extremes between the northern and southern hemispheres. In 13000 years the Americans will get our weather and we'll get theirs.
Here is NASA's own explanation why these cycles are essentially irrelevant to us today.
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
-- Edited by dorian on Tuesday 23rd of November 2021 04:35:05 AM
Well said.
-- Edited by dorian on Tuesday 23rd of November 2021 05:26:36 AM
Here is a review of Plimer's book, "Heaven and Earth", by an astronomer:
https://users.monash.edu.au/~bparris/Ashley%202009%20No%20Science%20in%20Plimer's%20Primer.pdf
"Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled 'The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass'. This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."