They are at once both chilling and hilariously funny…
Cheers Comrades
UPDATE
I just have to add this Vid to the post because it is a wonderful example of a peons of the Green faith being inadvertently side split-tingly funny !
This is the comment I have left to this chaps blog post about the vid, and as I sort of expect that he may delete it I repost it here.
Of course what you seem to be ignoring in your piece is that the most significant green house gas and the real reason that this planet has a climate that is viable for life is WATER VAPOUR if there was no water vapour in our atmosphere our climate would not be liveable!!!
You totally ignore it in your presentation, as if Co2 is the only thing that matters, further you ignore the natural CO2 cycles from non-anthropogenic sources in the biosphere as well!!!Mate you need to learn a bit more about science and how to appreciate the whole picture of how the climate works rather than just sprouting the religious dogma of the Gaian Faith. Frankly it does you no good at all to put vids like this one out there unless you just want to give sceptics like me the very biggest belly laughs at your scientific ineptitude!
Laughing outrageously Comrades!!!!!
Ironic !
I know it has only been weeks, but not one of the party’s policy directives has come up yet.
Perhaps too busy looking back at their Franklin success, and dreaming of a similar future ?
Pity they couldn’t save the Tasmanian rainforests though.
They have a great chance, to really cement themselves as a serious political contender in this country, and every day that passes, as they continue to suck up labor’s caboose, they are pushing themselves farther and farther from that goal.
Chilling and funny indeed Sherlocke ?
Where was the learned gent?
Most apt title, Iain! Let’s take another look after the next election
Spencer Weart, Director Emeritus at the American Institute of Physics, responds:
I agree, it’s important to point out that the Earth is a wet planet. Water cycles in and out of the air, oceans, and soils in a matter of days, exquisitely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature. By contrast CO2 (and other, less important greenhouse gases like methane) linger in the atmosphere for much longer timesclaes (decades or centuries). Thus it is these gases that act as the “control knob” that sets the level of water vapor. If all the CO2 were somehow removed, the temperature at first would fall only a little. But then less water would evaporate into the air, and some would fall as rain. With less water vapor (and also less clouds retaining heat at night) the air would cool further, bringing more rain… and then snow.
Within weeks, the air would be entirely dry and the Earth would settle into the frozen state that can be calculated for a planet with no greenhouse gases. This report by Lacis et al, Science 330 (2010) describe “water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system,” whereas the “noncondensing greenhouse gases… provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds.” In terms of direct effects on radiation, water vapor accounts for about half the greenhouse effect, clouds for about a quarter, CO2 for 20% and other greenhouse gases 5%.
This answer was reviewed by Clare Murphy (Paton-Walsh) from the Centre for Atmospheric Chemistry at the University of Wollongong
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/02/10/ask-a-climate-scientist-rainfall-and-water-vapor/
Ah…Getting your climate science from Bolt and Monckton again I see……..LOL……Iain the climate scientist….it’s so funny it hurts.
Your comment is actaully rather incoherent Craigy , the woes of thoughtless cut an paste I suppose
Very funny Iain, a primary school student could easily understand Spencer Weart’s clear explanation of the climate effects of water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess your deep love for Andrew Bolt is clouding your comprehension, I have warned you that devotion to the Bolt and his sad opinion typing (and now radio and TV rants) can lead to a lowering of critical thinking skills. So sad to see my warning coming true.
Now before you say you don’t read much Bolt, you still have yet to explain how, on the other thread, you managed to talk to all the climate scientists and do the research you claim to have done (if you are not just copying Bolt or some other discredited goose)……. just to remind you, here you are claiming to know all about the climate data and how it’s processed….
“Iain Hall”
“a climate science” that is based more upon a tiny percentage of actual data and a large measure of extrapolation and speculation…”
LOL, now let’s see you explain how you have visited all the climate scientists, examined all the evidence and conclusions and worked out that the data set is a tiny percentage. One must asked, a tiny percentage of what Iain?
If you didn’t get this talking point from Bolt, then who? Monckton? LOL……Oh my belly hurts.
Interesting that Weart thinks it would take weeks where Flummery thinks 1000 years plus. And they are BOTH scientiists.
Craigy
I have no trouble understanding just what your quote says, however You do a very poor job of making it relevant to either my post or to any other comment here,
Do you understand anything about the methodologies used in Paleo-climate reconstructions Craigy? because if you did you might just appreciate what I am saying here , Likewise what do you know about the way that Tree ring proxies work. Its rather like a bunch of blind men describing an elephant I don’t need to talk to anyone to know that none of them have a really good detailed picture of past climates here and without that they are as much in the dark as those blind men describing an elephant .
Further since I posted the comment I have included in this post as an update the creator of the second You tube vid has edited it to add a mention of water vapour that was not there to begin with which just adds to the hilarity as far as I’m concerned,
Just shows how desperate some alarmists are if you ask me though.
Without CO2 guys, we all know that this planet would die (along with us), within a very short time frame. Everything we eat, or grow, relies upon the gas to survive. A la photosynsthesis.
The guy is that paranoid, about pointing out the futility of being a “denier”, that he has no reasoning, as to why one becomes such.
Regardless of the ratio of co2 to oxygen, nitrogen or whatever else, nature needs that element to give us life on this planet. If there were no co2 in the atmosphere, we would have no plant life, therefore no oxygen production. Simple photosynthesis guys ?
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere, does not decide whether or not we will have an ice age, and if all life will die or not. It does not, at least on its own, determine weather patterns nor anything else.
Where is the parallel relationship between co2 and h2o ? Don’t see it !
It is a part of the process certainly, I will admit that, but there are so many other contributing factors that he is ignoring. (like the majority of the carbon devotee fan club ?)
I don’t agree with you Craigy, sorry.
If there were no co2 ?
What difference does co2 have in this process ? Water is h20 remember ? Where’s the carbon ? There isn’t any. The argument for years, has been that you have it backwards Craigy. If you believe the AGW cryhards, then the upper atmosphere will warm. What will happen then ? We all know how rain is formed. Heat rises, hits the upper layers, cools, then once the clouds get to that critical point, the clouds fall in altitude, and the moisture falls as rain. If you believe the cryhards, then this warmth will increase in the upper atmosphere, thereby increasing the amount of rain producing clouds. That would mean our planet would become wetter rather than drier ?
Our forest regions assist in the regulation of temperature on this planet. Without them, we would become a desert. What happens in a desert environment ? Hot dry days, and freezing cold nights, with little or no water vapour. That’s the danger.
Being a denier, or in fact a believer won’t change that little bit of probable scientific fact will it ?
Bolt’s comments on ABC Insiders some weeks ago, that electing a Green to the NSW upper house was a mistake, akin to the election of the Nazi’s in Germany in 1933 was a typical Bolt, mealy mouthed and pathetic slur on the Greens.
Jeremy – that’s what we’d expect you to say.
Damage, what makes you think Richard is Jeremy?
Hi Ian! Evan again.
remember last week I posted a comment about how greenhouse emissions are a rate of change problem? So, with CO2 the problem is not that it exists, but that we have increased the rate at which it enters the atmosphere.
So, same applies to water. Sure, it is a potent greenhouse gas because of the high-specific energy, but, what has changed that will put more water vaopur into the air? For water to have an influence on the climate, beyond the normal static-equilibrium, something must change the amount of water in the atmosphere. What has changed the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere Ian?
Hi Evan
Is there a static equilibrium in the amount of water vapour in the global atmosphere?
Has there been a change in the amount of water vapour in the air due to human activity?
Sorry to answer your questions with further questions but I think that your underlying assumptions about water vapour are wrong here.
Yes Iain (sorry for forgetting the second i before!!!;;;)
So, no doubt you’re aware, the carrying-capacity of any solution is governed by the pressure and temperature. Global average pressure doesn’t change, temperature varies and wobbles up and down. So, the amount of water in the atmosphere is a function of temperature and pressure, not rate of input. The rate of input of water will have no influence on the amount of water in the atmosphere because it just falls out somewhere else. The oceans and the atmosphere are in saturated equilibrium. You can not change the amount of water vapour in the air.
Unlike CO2. There are no liquid sources of CO2 on earth to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. We are a very, very long way off saturating the atmosphere with CO2, so if the rate of input increases, the concentration in the atmosphere increases.
So you see, it is impossible for water vapour to affect the climate. I encourage you to forget about it in future.
Evcricket.
Evan
Hmm, I think that you are wrong here as the majority of the “greenhouse effect” is actaully the result of water vapour in our atmosphere. which was the point that I was making in that other place. I suspect that the point that you are trying to make is that all things being equal that the effect from water vapour is unaltered by human activity so we can ignore it when discussing AGW. Well that may be so, BUT when we are considering the overall issue of climate dynamics we should not forget that water vapour is the major factor that makes our climate habitable and that the effect of Co2 is of a much smaller magnitude rather than it being the main protagonist here.
No doubt, the MAGNITUDE of the influence of water on the climate is greater than CO2 (and in all my posts, CO2 is short hand for the whole suite of Kyoto gases). I’m sure if you read the AR4 you would find this spelt out in great detail.
But you don’t seem to have grasped the point. Magnitude is not the game here. Changes in rate is the problem. While the influence of water is without doubt the greatest in the atmosphere, the content of water vapour does not change, so why talk about it? The concentration of CO2 is increasing, so we should talk about it. I hope this makes sense by now, it’s a slippery topic and not one that many people grasp entirely.
Evcricket.
Evan
I certainly get what you are arguing here but perhaps you should check out this post To put the amount of increase in the amount of atmospheric Co2 into a better perspective
Iain, Evan is quite correct. It is the change (and the rate) that is important, not the absolute magnitude.
If you increase the CO2 present in a planetary atmosphere, the planet’s temperature will increase. Period. Full stop. Exclamation mark.
One issue here is that the new equilibrium will not be reached for quite a while, several decades in fact. So if you increase the CO2 concentration faster than the planet can respond – like we’re doing – you end up with quite a bit of temperature increase “in the pipeline”. Which is where we are now.
BTW – I’m highly amused by your recent forays into physics. I would suggest however that you apply some rigour to your studies so you get the basic concepts right. That way you may eventually come “out of the darkness” …. and realise that all of your thoughts on AGW over the years are complete bollocks.
Bloody bulls*it JM. That is an argument that has been used by alarmists for nearly two decades. That is why I have a job (thanks btw)
That has been proven time and time again, by the people that know, to be an incorrect statement. It is only the governments, sensing a way to introduce a new tax, that are continuing to attempt to blind us, with this rhetoric, with the aid of unlimited propaganda budgets !
Wow, now there are some pretty strong words !
From another article :
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
……. (and further)
What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate “forcing”, the correlation will be obscured.
Source : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html
Again, everyone in the argument is ignoring the obvious in this argument.
That is, you continue to deforest this planet at its current rate, and what do you think is going to happen ?
C’mon people, a little common sense is all that is required in this entire argument.
Too difficult perhaps in the current political climate ?
Added to that, in conjunction with the ice core samples, what happened after the last ice age, and what happens during a prolonged cooling phase ? What happens to vegetation growth ? Its rate slows in proportion, and in the process, what happens when you add the world wide rape of our forest regions ?
Not hard to see what happens to the rate of co2 absorbtion is it ?
Of course it is going to fall, as there is less and less forestation to absorb the co2.
I thought that would be a natural extension of the argument, and a reasonable explanation of why the earth’s co2 levels are on the increase ?
Sax: Bloody bulls*it JM.
Simple physics Sax. Or do you think CO2 lasers don’t work? They do.
Look Sax we’ve had this argument on this site before, when you weren’t around. Apart from Iain there is a long line of very mislead people like yourself who’ve ended up scuttling away and never coming back – remember Shaun Whelan PKD? Canadian geologist and Detroit’s best automotive engineer who used to back up his “scientific” arguments with quotes from tourist pamphlets?
You’re talking nonsense. Often refuted and discredited nonsense, that has been trawled over here at great length.
I can’t be bothered going into the ice cores with you today. You are a denialist pure and simple.
What simple physics would that be ?
You can talk about your ice cores all you like, and I am not a denialist.
I am a realist !
I am aware of climate change. Hell, I have three aeorplanes in the air, roughly 250+/- days a year testing this crap. I am no scientist, but I can read.
Again for your benefit ?
* carbon is the most common element on this planet. As such, everything is a carbon based life form ?
* you deforest this planet, at the rate we have been, what do you think is going to happen to carbon levels ? Again, the recent fires in Indonesia may be a tip off there ?
You have the same problem, as obviously the rest of academia is having.
The answer is smack in front of them, but in their quest for stardom, book offers, even more lucrative grants, the lucrative lecture circuit, et al, they or you by the looks of it, can’t see it.
I’m not the one, seeking to bamboozle the powers that be, for that cushy grant mate. I already have my cushy gig.
You are being sucked in.
The answer is not that difficult to ascertain, nor implement.
No money in it though, hence, it is being ignored ?
The answer ?
You want to decrease the carbon levels on this planet as a whole ?
S*it, stop cutting the fu**ing trees down !
Hell, it’s not that hard ffs ?
Sax: . Hell, I have three aeorplanes in the air, roughly 250+/- days a year testing this crap.
I think I’ve heard this line before. “David Davidson” and “Les” have both run this story as I recall.
* carbon is the most common element on this planet. As such, everything is a carbon based life form ?
Yes. But what’s your point?
* you deforest this planet, at the rate we have been, what do you think is going to happen to carbon levels ?
They’ll go up. But deforestation has absolutely nothing on burning fossil fuels. You can cut down every tree on the planet and you won’t come close to the level of carbon put into the atmosphere by burning 50% of the oil and a fair swag of the coal. It took millions of years of dead trees to create those resources. A century of living trees wouldn’t touch the sides.
David works for me, has done for years.
That’s how I found out about this rag in the first place.
Don’t know who “Les” is. Has never been a Les here.
* What’s my point. Do I really need to explain it ? You guys are supposed to be the scientists here. I am just an old flight jock. What it means is, everything on this planet will have a percentage of carbon in it. It has only been the last ten years or so, that we have even been testing for it. Why bother ? Its in every bloody thing, that is why dopes like Gillard and Co have jumped all over it. Can’t ignore it. Carbon, again, is not the problem, the problem is what attaches itself to the carbon molecules that is the problem.
* Maybe so, but, what absorbs carbon, and its derivatives ? Might it be the photosynthesis cycle ? Certainly we are burning fossil fuels, but the human race has been doing that for thousands of years without any apparent catastrophic climate event ? What’s changed ? Might it be the introduction of mass logging ?
Think about it for a second ?
C’mon man, if you want to discredit my argument, you will have to do better than that. And no, I don’t work for the forestry industry, nor the mining industry. So taking the party line is not applicable. However, the scientific fraternity are so hip deep into this sh*t, that they can no longer find a back way out, and save face. That’s the problem !
BTW, I don’t criticise people’s identities when I lose an argument either.
Also, I have put my name up, even in this thread. Don’t see your name anywhere, nor have anywhere, so stick your baseless accusations up your a*se !
Stick to the thread if you want to argue, not the person. Your making the same mistake as Bright is making.
Sax: David works for me
Funny, he claimed to be the principal of the company who had made around $100 million over the last 10 years.
Sax: [CO2] has only been the last ten years or so, that we have even been testing for it.
The Hawaii station at Mauna Loa has been going since the International Geophysical Year (1958-9), and Cape Grim in Tasmania has been at it about 30 years now. There are older measurements going back to the middle of the 19th Century. And the ice cores you’re so fond of go back hundreds of thousands of years.
Try to keep up with the latest Sax, there weren’t even multicelled animals at the time of the earliest ice cores. You wouldn’t even qualify for dinosaur status if you’re going to claim that ice cores are “too new” to be trusted. Dinosaurs come along hundreds of millions of years later. No, you’d be down there with amoeba.
Sax: if you want to discredit my argument, you will have to do better than that.
You want to mount a better one first.
So another one who, upon losing an argument, begins attacking the one that shot him/her down. You reckon you’re a scientist ? Where’s your scientific unbiased approach ? You carbon crie hards are all the same. Believe what we tell you, or we will do anything within our power to discredit you. The truth being the first victim.
Never said I made 100 mil you turkey, I said it cost about 100 mil.
No wonder your arguments are equally full of c*ap.
Both your stations test at ground level. Oops ?
Also, I wasn’t the one that wrote the article criticising ice cores. There was a link attached. If you feel so passionate about it, perhaps you should take your tantrum direct to the author. I didn’t write the f*cking thing.
Must have hit pretty close to home though, for you to get your dander up ?
Again, you are comparing apples with organges.
The research is still being down at ground level, but nowadays, with ever increasing miniturization, that research can continue up to high altitudes. Right up into the jet streams including lower space. Ever heard of NOAA ?
You don’t know that. Just because a sample has yet to be found (as far as we know) that contains bacteria, or any other form of primitive animal for that matter, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. That’s like someone saying, just because life hasn’t been found on another planet, it proves this is the only planet in the universe capable of sustaining life. Another b/s scientific truth. Just because science didn’t or haven’t observed it, it doesn’t exist.
No wonder science lacks credibility and borders on religious paranoia ?
I never said I was a scientist JM, and by the looks of your argument, neither are you. I have mounted the argument, and you have yet to discredit it. You changed the subject.
Sure you don’t work for the timber industry ? The way you arched up after that little comment, and changed tack would suggest it ?
If you were the scientist that you imply, you would know that looking at ice cores is a f*cking waste of time. The damage has been done since industrialisation, that’s the mess you have to clean up.
Wake up, and smell what you’re shovelling.
BTW, speaking to David, across the office here, he is laughing and shaking his head. He never said that. He works for me Len Saxby, has done since about 94. It’s my business not his (although sometimes I wonder).
Now, what was your real name again, or are you too embarrassed ?
Hi Guys,
The conversation has progressed here, and it is obvious I am among people who know what they are talking about.
So, Sax and Iain you’ve identified a lot of data that does not suppot the climate change theory. You have denied that any information presented supports the theory. Clearly then, you know a lot about climate change and atmospherics.
So, using these skills;;;; let’s assume climate change is happening and is caused by human activities. What data would support this? If humans are changing the climate through the increased emission of greenhouse gases how would we know? What would the data look like?
If you can’t answer this, I will certainly have cause to doubt everything else you’ve said. Anyone who can so clearly identify what does not support a theory, must know very accurately what data supports the theory.
Evcricket
Spot on Evan.
Thank you. An unemotional, healthy, skeptical look and analysis of the situation.
I have always stated that the climate is changing, have done since the start. BUT I am not swallowing the rhetoric, that the generalisation being put forth, re that carbon is the culprit, or the direct cause. At least not by itself.
The only data set available for research, goes back only a couple of hundred years, since industrialisation, at best. Those are figures that we have to look at, and scrutinise. Unfortunately, we all know that all processes on this planet, have been formulated over millions of years. Hence the emotion, and disagreement.
You can’t look solely at ice cores, or in fact any other form of research, even what we do here, to make that final anylitical decision.
All of the research has to be considered, analytically critiqued, with open minds, not as if the next fat research grant hangs on the final result ? Analytically critiqued with open minds, before a final cause, as well as solutions can be ascertained !
Take the money and fame out of the equation entirely. That is Science’s credibility problem. Always has been.
That is where this whole argument is being side tracked, with pure emotion, and glory hunting, and probably more applicable ?
Show me the money ?
Sure, but you haven’t answered the question.
If we are changing the climate, what evidence would support this?
Sorry, missed that.
The data that we have collected over all those years, as well as a lot of other people btw (also as I have said here many times), is that carbon by itself is not the problem, merely what the pollies and greenies have jumped on.
The problem appears to be, (and again I am not a chemist, nor scientist), the molecules, and atoms, that attach themselves to the carbon. These vary, depending on where the research is being done. Phosphates, even some of the heavy metal atoms surprisingly enough, (lead for example), as well as numerous other base metals that attach themselves to the carbon.
There are a few tip offs. But as climate patterns themselves are inherantly long term, best estimates are what they are coming up with. What they have ascertained is our seasons are shifting ever so slightly. Our winters are becoming more extreme, as are our summers. Their timings are also changing more than ever before. Both earlier, later, as well as in direct length.
These conclusions are fact, but their causes are still open to conjecture. Our climatic “events” themselves are becoming more severe, regardless of elninio or laninio for example. Another bandwagon everyone has jumped on. Bushfires over the amazon, as well as indonesia. Canada, and southern California similarly. Floods in central Australia and so on and so forth. But again, are these “events” man made, or simply a natural hiccup ?
These events don’t indicate merely localised weather “events”, but due to their increasing frequency, rather, a fundamental shift in long term climatic patterns. That is the problem here. Regardless of the hard data provided, (by everybody), not one of the egghead community can come to a consensus as to the cause, and ultimately a cure.
To make the ultimate decision, (and one that each person on their own has to come to on their own ?), we have to look at the evidence, and make that decision. In my opinion we cannot simply continue to “rape” the planet, as we have been doing for centuries, and expect Mother Nature not to come back, and slap us back into reality ?
have weekly vid conf so see you guys after
Evcricket, don’t expect Iain to answer your questions about the science. He likes to make lots of truthy statements about climate science and repeat Andrew Bolt talking points in most of his posts, but then disappears when asked to explain his truthy science and runs a mile when you ask him to explain which part of his arts degree covered atmospheric water vapour.
I really don’t think he is stupid enough to believe the stuff he posts about climate science, but it gets him lots of hits. I’ve just about given up trying to go through his logic on this issue because after one or two replies, when his argument is looking dodgy, he disappears and you end up talking to Sax or even worse ‘damage’, who at least try to mount an argument but end up making even less sense than Iain.
I think all the ‘wingnut climate science deniers’ on this site are so stuck in a corner defending science they don’t really understand, that they are just completely stuck in their own mud. Best to leave them to it and let them fade into obscurity and quiet embarrassment as the rest of the world does something to address the problem.
Similarly all you wingnut climate change science devotees should stop sprouting the unproven rhetorical party line, purely designed to attract the money, and begin to look at the whole argument ! Perhaps with an open mind, and not from a mind that has been spoon fed ?
What would that be Craigy ?
Perhaps another world climate conference ?
Wow, those have achieved a hell of a lot haven’t they ? (sic)
I find it ironic that you haven’t entered into this debate, with one iota of evidence to disprove what I have been saying. Other than emotive sarcasm ?
Typical scientists’ lap dog
Craigy
As I have pointed out to you before I do have a life outside the Sandpit (and I’m off out shortly so I’ll adress any substantive arguments when I get back , assuming that the missus lets me instead of wanting me to do trivial things like replace the broken toilet cistern) However I think that you misrepresent the state of debate here on the climate science. As I understand it those postulating a theory have the onus of proof and at present they have not met that requirement.
And we should not expect Craig to explain that.
Then: Sax: David works for me
[me] Funny, he claimed to be the principal of the company who had made around $100 million over the last 10 years.
Now:
Sax: Never said I [<------ notice the "I"] made 100 mil you turkey, I said it cost about 100 mil.
So you’re Dave right? Despite all protestations and impersonations to the contrary?
Just because a sample has yet to be found (as far as we know) that contains bacteria, or any other form of primitive animal for that matter, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
Sax. Just Google “cambrian explosion” – ie. the emergence of complex multi-celled creatures. Occurred about 550M years ago. Ice cores go back further.
Sax: The problem appears to be, (and again I am not a chemist, nor scientist), the molecules, and atoms, that attach themselves to the carbon.
No you’re clearly not. Oxygen is not a problem. And not a greenhouse gas even though it forms 2 parts out of 3 in a CO2 molecule.
Look. The CO2 problem is based around the energy levels and resonances of the CO2 molecule – in the infrared – and this is something that is well known.
Even from the simplistic Bohr model of the atom, something that schoolchildren learn in Year 11.
This is fundamentally something that is absolutely not rocket science. It’s high school science. Your kids may very well know it.
Evan
Hmm I don’t know if that is sarcasm or a straight complement
Yeah OK , its not hard to find caveats and gaps in the AGW argument, climate sensitivity to added CO2 is a biggie
Err No, I have never said that there is not “any” information that supports the theory, I just think that there is not enough to justify acting just for the sake of doing “something” if that something is not going to give us any worthwhile result .
Why should we make this assumption? especially when the real question at the heart of thsi debate is the extent to which we can really attribute any perceived change to the climate TO HUMAN ACTIVITY
I’m not an expert but having a better data set for paleo-climates would certainly give us a better baseline than the on that we have now
That is the $64,000 question isn’t it? There are a lot of assumptions in the AGW theory and very few ways that they can be empirically tested
It is the supporters of the theory who have the onus of proof, all a sceptic has to do is to point out some simple flaws in its assumptions, like the paucity of objective data on paleo climates once you go back beyond the early instrumental records. When you are talking about events over geological time scales what we know about the history of the planet’s climate is just so sketchy that nay picture drawn is about 99% speculation and much less than 1% real data.
That is your job, as an AGW believer, to make the argument for the theory
Craigy
Let me just respond to your “points” in turn OK????
You have never asked me any questions about how my Arts degree covers any part of the question of climate Science, not once.
While I try to look at the underlying issues all you seem to do is to genuflect to anyone in a magical white coat…
I can only take responsibility for my own opinions here Craigy but sadly for you the truth is that there is no conspiracy here, just a coincidence that others are on deck and responding when I have other things to do
As Sax points out the rest of the world are not going to “do” anything substantive to address this “problem” but you misrepresent my position quite a lot none the less. I have said on numerous occasions that you Warministas could be right but even in that eventuality the “prescriptions” to the problem that have been suggested are like Gillard’s Carbon tax not at all likely to have any effect on the climate. As I am sure that I have said many times it is better to do nothing than to wast effort and treasure doing something that is entirely futile and pointless.
JM
Given your own refusal to come clean about just who you are and tell us your real name its bloody OTT for you to question the identity of any current or previous commentators here at the Sandpit, in fact I will delete or edit any further comments form you that do this just to save you form having to justify your hypocrisy.
Capiche?.
But you do make me laugh sometimes like when you make this claim :
Now this struck me as being just plain wrong, Ice cores do not even go back one million years:
according to wiki we are only looking at a scale in the hundreds of thousands of years yet you are claiming hundreds of millions of years here!!!! That my friend is what my daughter would call an “EPIC FAIL!!!!
So how did you jump to that conclusion ? You wonder now, why realists have such a problem with scientists ? Talking about a dry reach.
Got a parachute ? Need one for a jump like that !
I have said numerous times, that David works for me. That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned. You’re like an old broken 78 ffs. If he doesn’t want to play, hell, he’s an adult, and unlike me, has decided that the crap that eggheads like you come up with, is not worth responding to. I am beginning to agree with him.
Again with the ice cores. On their own, fu**ing irrelevant !
Any tip offs as to our changing climate patters will be ascertained, from evidence gathered since the beginning of the industrial age, as that is where the consensus is, as to the major cause of that damage. Historical data, from wherever, gives us patterns, but nothing of any comparison value here.
You seem to be fond of belittling all and sundry, that call your theories as cr*p, so fine here is one for you.
Your wonderful Even from the simplistic Bohr model of the atom, something that schoolchildren learn in Year 11.
Ooh ! Fancy words.
Hell, I have only academy science behind me bugger all.
What is Carbon JM ?
Might it be a conductor by some chance ?
What happens with electrons within a conductor atom ? They are loosely bound to the proton/neutron, and upon minor charges, they lose and gain electrons with other conductor molecules ?
Talking about high school science ? Not at school the day they had that lecture perhaps ?
Carbon being a conductor, has loose outer electrons that can and do attach themselves to other atoms. That is how current flows.
Might it also be, that our atmosphere, at multiple levels, carries with it, an electric charge, that may force that flow of loose electrons ? With me yet ?
Basic science indeed. Might pay for you to go back yourself and do a refresher.
bugger ya Iain,
ya stole me thunder !
ps
can you fix my comment please
the end of italic should be at just before what is carbon JM ?
thanks
Thanks ! BTW Iain.
A bachelor of Arts degree is three years long in Australia, funnily enough, so is a bachelor of Science?
However, in Arts, you are taught to creatively think aren’t you?
Not sprout or regurgitate, what everyone else has said before you perhaps ?
Done and dusted Sax ,
I just could not believe his claim about Ice cores going back more than 500million years!!!
Has he never heard of continental drift and Pangea?
Well I learned to argue the toss about everything in my three years
Nor the industrial revolution, mining, nor the massive deforestation of our planet by the looks of it.
You were one of the lucky ones.
If we argued, we spent our weekends walking the outer perimeter fence of Duntroon ?
Sax: What is Carbon JM ?
It’s an element.
Might it be a conductor by some chance ?
Yes, your point?
What happens with electrons within a conductor atom ?
Tell me. Carbon is not a metal but you seem to be trying to describe a metallic phenonomen.
They are loosely bound to the proton/neutron,
Ahh nup. They’re tightly bound. You’re describing Van der Waals forces. (And you might find that there are 6 protons in a Carbon atom, not just one).
and upon minor charges, they lose and gain electrons with other conductor molecules ?
… and now you’re describing covalent bonds which are much stronger.
You’re a bit confused Sax.
You might try Googling “emission spectrum carbon dioxide”
Climate Change is far too important for politicians, wordsmiths, and bloggers to handle—by the way is mother nature a Liberal?
You’re a bit confused yourself.
This may not be in order, but here it is.
Actually mate, it is simple Ohm’s Law !
Carbon IS a conductor. All metals are not conductors, same as all conductors are not metal.
What causes a substance to conduct ?
The outer layer of electrons are loosely bound, i.e less than 8. Allowing the outer ring, to be “unlocked” and vulnerable to emf.
Insulators, work in the reverse. Hence the term. The atom is tightly bound, and there are no loose electons, that can be attracted. Voltage/current goes no where. The outer ring is locked, i.e 8.
In a conductor, therefore, any passing element that has an outer ring, with the opposite charge, will attract those loose electrons. That is how current and voltage is formed. Basic electricity 101 ?
It’s an element.
Yes it is. What are inherrent qualities of an element ?
One would be it’s ability to interract with other elements, and particles, to form new elements and particles. Hence the term co2 ?
and now you’re describing covalent bonds which are much stronger
Wrong ! A covalent bond is a chemical bond We are talking electrical not chemical, however, a chemical reaction can cause an electrical potential, but for that to happen, there has to be an external applied emf voltage, hence the concept of the cell.
Ahh nup. They’re tightly bound. You’re describing Van der Waals forces. (And you might find that there are 6 protons in a Carbon atom, not just one).
Look at is representation. It has four electrons in it’s outer ring. This is why it is a conductor. It loses some of these electrons when it interacts anywhere near any other. For it to be locked, it requires 8 electrons in that outer circle from memory. That is why it is a conductor, it allows the gain and loss of electrons to remain balanced. Van der Waals work was in chemistry not electricity. His concerns were “intermolecular forces”, not “electromagnetic”. The two are completely different animals.
emission spectrum carbon dioxide
Again, you are changing the goal posts.
We are not talking about co2, we are talking about c !
But, to appease your concerns, what causes your emission ladidah ?
EMF from the sun’s radiation perhaps ? Again, an external voltage is applied, through the sun’s electromagnetic force.
C’mon man, this is basic year 10 physics and chem ffs ?
That’s why nothing ever gets done Richard ?
Sax, you’re incoherent. You’re tossing around ideas and concepts you barely understand. Go and get an education.
it’s ability to interract with other elements, and particles, to form new elements and particles.
New elements cannot be formed through chemistry – that’s why they’re called “elements”. They’re elemental. New particles cannot be formed through chemistry or everyday processes either, you need a particle accelerator. Further the Standard Model only provides for the “8 fold way”. ie. there are only 12 fermions and a few gauge bosons. You don’t get any extra unless you want to start building a new universe. You certainly don’t get them by burning coal.
Hence the term co2
CO2 is a molecule. Formed via chemistry from 3 atoms, 1 of Carbon, 2 of Oxygen. CO2 is NOT an element. Neither is it a particle. You DO get CO2 from burning coal.
Bbbbbbbut. If you think you have a new theory of physics ….. knock yourself out. We’re all ears.
JM
I notice that you have nothing to say about your own EPIC FAIL about your claim that the ice cores go back more than 550 million years, Are you hoping that we will forget it?
Now given the way that you are so dismissive of this humble scribe and his knowledge of science it would not be unreasonable to expect that you might just be able to man up enough to admit that you are wrong for once.
Sax: However, in Arts, you are taught to creatively think aren’t you?
Hmm, so perhaps the universe allows you to paint by numbers? And get whatever you want? Sorry, I don’t think so.
The universe – ie. reality – has this habit of headbutting fantasists. Proving them wrong when their “creations” don’t match what actually happens. I’ve heard it’s called the “scientific method”.
Could you perhaps “paint”, in an artistic and creative fashion of course, a universe in which:-
a.) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not absorb and re-emit infrared (aka heat)
b.) we actually live in rather than your fantasy world “creatively” conceived in a.)
Surely not too much to ask of an Arts major?
Richard
If it were not for “politicians, wordsmiths, and bloggers “ you would not even know about the theory of man made climate change let alone be discussing it here.
JM
Still unable to acknowledge YOUR EPIC FAIL I see.
By the Numbers you are wrong about the time scale of ice cores by a factor of greater than 550 times (given that ice cores go back less than one million years and you claim that they go back more than 550 million)
TIME TO ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WONG BOYO!!!
Is Wong a typo?
Bloody funny one given QnA last night.
And your throwing around ideas that you don’t understand.
A conductor is a conductor is a conductor.
This isn’t chemical, it’s electromagnetic. That is obviously something you cannot seem to get your head around, like most of your persuasion.
Where the hell did you get your education JM ? Bloody Mc Donalds ? If you are talking about Basic Elements certainly, I agree with you. The basic elements never change, however, they mix with new elements, or more basically other molecules, to become new compounds etc, hence CO2. (C + O2)
Ever heard of electricity ?
Perhaps current flow ?
Or even more basic than that, something you may have seen perhaps.
How about lightning ?
How the hell do you think that happens ?
By using the bloody force ?
Particle accelorator. Oh please. For God’s sake, google Ohm’s Law will ya ?
WTF ? You’re talking about particle physics ?
Go back to the beginning kiddo. What we are discussing here is the most basic of physics in nature. The structure of an atom.
Whilst your at google, perhaps it might pay to look up structure of an atom, a molecule, and loose electrons and how current flows. The above is not only irrelevent to the argument, but gobbledygook.
You are still referring to CO2, That was not the argument. The argument was carbon remember ?
Iain is also correct about the ice cores as well. In your failing argument, you are grasping at straws, trying to bamboozle us with terms that no one has evern heard of, in the hope that we are all too stupid to take any notice.
Guess what ? We aren’t and we did !
Iain, I will get round to answering your email – suffice to say I am busy elsewhere right now. However your bullying of JM here is quite disgraceful and unbecoming of you. This is the kind of deplorable behavior you encouraged from the side lines from the Sock err Ray that I have issue with.
If you really want to be seen as a real sceptic you have to allow all opinions – you have no issue with the denialist side from Sax and yourself so stop doing a Monckton and threatening JM just cause his ideas are different to yours…
PKD
I look forward to reading your response to my Email.
Lets be straight here JM is trying to derail the argument here so that he can argue the toss about just who another commentator is, frankly If he was doing it in relation to your own good self then my attitude would be precisely the same; Its off topic, it is unnecessary and for someone like JM, who posts under a pseudonym himself , to question the identity of another posters here who I believe is posting under their real name is just hypocritical beyond belief.
My “threat” only pertains to him straying off topic into ad hominem territory he is more than welcome to post any number of opinions that disagree with me or Sax . Further show me any Warminista blog that is as accommodating to contrary opinions the the Sandpit, Personally I think that you will be hard-pressed to find very many
However your bullying of JM here is quite disgraceful and unbecoming of you
That’s a bit rich PKD. When you begin to argue the toss, by challenging someones identity, and making the attacks personal, (especially when you are hiding behind a pseudonym yourself), is the height of hubris, and deserves all the criticism it gets. Especially, when your argument, seemingly gets shot down with a bit of logic ? JM has attempted to sidetrack this thread, every time his argument has been torn apart, by challenging identities, and name calling. Hardly a mature response, and your defence of this behaviour says more about you, than it does about Iain.
This is just a blog most certainly, but the tactic does little to progress his, (and yours), argument for consideration, or even for us to take you guys seriously ? Even sadder, is that, by that behaviour sidetracks any argument you or your movement wishes to pursue.
I don’t speak for Iain, but personally, I expect my arguments to be critiqued, and don’t use semantics, such as name calling to sidetrack that critique, unless provoked. I think Iain is similarly minded. As for “bullying” that’s an absolute crock.
You come out with wild unsubstantiated rhetoric, and all whilst criticising everyone elses argument with rhetoric or name calling, don’t expect any quarter to be given. You deserve what you get. Keep it respectful, and we all get to learn something, and that is what this ball game is all about.
Perhaps something to consider ?
Sax: A conductor is a conductor is a conductor.
This isn’t chemical, it’s electromagnetic. That is obviously something you cannot seem to get your head around,
Can you explain to me – please – what conductors and electromagnetic effects on the macro* scale have to do with what are fundamentally atomic and molecular effects (the absorption/emission of infrared by CO2)?
Sax, I really do know this stuff and you don’t. You are way, way out of your league here.
You are still referring to CO2, That was not the argument. The argument was carbon remember ?
Arrh … no. The argument is CO2, “carbon” is a shorthand used in recent mainstream debate. No-one argues that the carbon in the COMPOUNDS in your body – eg. water, haemoglobin, etc – are warming the planet. It is CO2 produced as a result of human industry that is the problem.
You seem very confused Sax.
* ie. something the human eye can see, like wires, capacitors and so on?
Sorry, made a mistake there – water doesn’t contain carbon, but most of the other stuff in your body does.
What stuff would that be ? Particle phyics ? Sorry mate, but if you did, then you wouldn’t have to ask the question ? Hardly out of my league, when your rebuttal has to resort to particle physics ? Incorrectly at that ?
C’mon man give me credit for some intelligence here.
You were talking about carbon. What you are referring to now is co2 ? A conjoined molecule, with a base of guess what ? Carbon ! Now you are talking again about chemistry, not basic physics. They are two entirely different molecules in chemistry and physics mate. Which is it ?
Now, again, remember I am no scientist, but would it be prudent to state that all particles (or even more basic molecules), are either neutral, capacitive, or resistive in nature on this planet ?
What has that got to do with anything ?
Everything, I mean everything, on this planet exhibits a natural electric charge. What happens when the body is exposed to rf or anything that upsets this balance ? We get sick pretty quick don’t we ? This entire planet is nothing more than a massive electronic circuit, with the sun acting as the battery pack. Everything on it has a charge. That is the way of life. Carbon is conductor. Your continual changing the goal posts, with your argument now being co2, shows the importance of carbon on this planet. Even you have finally admitted to that ?
My point ? Simple really. All forms of pollution on this planet, has also this natural electrical charge. That is how it dispurses itself around the planet, utilising the capacitive conductive properties of carbon as its conduit.
What industries or methods are increasing carbon levels on this planet.
In an attempt to be fair, to see where you are coming from, in this debate, I really am interested in your answer here ?
I am no scientist, but even over my last near twenty or so years of data collection, tells me that carbon, or even carbon dioxide is not the problem. Being conductive in nature, it is the other atoms and even molecules, that attach themselves to the carbon that is the problem.
Carbon monoxide for example ?
As I have stated, the solution is pretty clear, and I am not going to repeat it here. The quicker we realse that, and fix it, the better.
Dullard’s new carbon tax grab will do absolutely nout to fix that inherrent deficiency.
Sax
Help me out on this one? I have looked everywhere and cannot find an answer.
How will the carbon tax save the planet. Where is the money raised to be spent? I am not an environmental expert (know little actually) but government debate seems to be all on taxing, not on the usage of the revenue raised.
Again, spot on Jilly.
It won’t !
The income from it will be spent trying to pay labor’s ever increasing debt ? Has nothing to do with the environment, only econmic mismanagement.
I’m no expert either Jilly, just a person who can possibly see past the spin.
Some of the revenue will be used to collect the damn thing! Then the black hole of the deficit will soak up the rest, save for some unworkable green energy schemes which will, like all of Labor’s initiatives, probably fail in the first few months.
Labor are now paying interested groups who are prepared to spread the word about the benefits of the carbon tax. Paying them a quarter of a million. Each group, whatever that means. Heck, I’ll put together a group for that money.
This government is beyond looney tunes.
So we will have a carbon tax but will be spent as Labor sees fit. No wonder I don’t care much for the Labor/Greens policies.
Will the airlines continue to charge a carbon offset? What about those goods I have purchased that claim carbon emissions offset in the price? Will it then become illegal to charge these items extra as it would then be a double tax? Can I get my money back on these, I think I will need it.
It will be a minefield of exemptions and a can of worms for accountants and public servants. Small business will suffer the most. The large corporations will cope by passing on the cost. Small business don’t have that luxury. Labor are forcing this legislation through without proper thought. To announce that petrol will be exempt, but diesel won’t be, has to be the most bloody minded vote seeking, knee-jerk decision of all, considering diesel is both cleaner and used by tradies and farmers.
As well as shooting themselves in the foot, Labor are shooting the very people who are the backbone of our working society, whilst pandering to pensioners and urban SUV driving Greens. By all means look after the pensioners, but ignoring the engine room of Australia is not a wise move, politically or economically.
Perhaps all this Labor-inflicted pain could be seen as being necessary, were the tax actually achieving something towards negating the effects of polluting humans, but that result is unlikely at best and in the meantime, the climate will do what it damn well likes. Just like it has for millenia.
Given that anything Australia does to curb carbon emissions is negated immediately by China’s massive technological expansion, it begs the question: why the hell are we pissing in the wind for no avail other than to voluntarily decimate our industries and cripple our economy.
Labor and the Greens have a lot to answer for.
Sax: A conjoined molecule, with a base of guess what ? Carbon ! Now you are talking again about chemistry, not basic physics.
Sax you are really out of your league and making a fool of yourself. CO2 absorbs and emits infrared. This is part of the cross-over between quantum physics and chemistry. The basic effect is quantum mechanical applied to a particular molecule (CO2).
Read that page for the basic mechanism
You clearly have no understanding of this w*h*a*t*s*o*e*v*e*r.
(Hint – when you’re in a hole, stop digging).
Speaking of Holes JM how are you doing trying to find the courage to admit that you were wrong about the Ice cores?????
He won’t Iain, because like all AGW fanatics, when they are found out to be wrong, they change the subject, and start the blame game, as above ?
But, no where, other than the increase is due to human activity , is the cause even mentioned. 800,000 years huh ! What a crock. There are so many reasons that could account for this increase, that occur naturally on this planet, that the whole argument, without further proof, becomes moot.
Its the analogy of a dog with a bone. It won’t let go. That’s the problem with you, as well as the entire scientific frat party on this subject. They have latched onto co2, as that is where the money is, and won’t consider anything other than that. Pretty sad really when you think about it.
Ok, lets deal with the last little lot, and keep in mind I am just a dumb flight jock, but that brought me a smile, this early, in the morning, whilst watching the guys as they sweeping snow off the strip ? Not kidding either ! 2 inches of the crap.
But hey, global warming is going to kill us all ?
Again, you are changing the goal posts JM ?
So, we are saying now that co2 assists in reflecting infra red and other rays from the sun ?
<strong? NEWS FLASH KIDDO !
Ever heard of the ionosphere ? By the sounds of it not.
It’s a series of layers, that sits at about the 80k and up region. What does the ionosphere do as such ?
Suppose you can say now, that co2 is causing that as well ? Hmm ? OK, now we understand that principal, where are we, at present, in the sunspot cycle ?
Might it be, that we smack in the lull of that cycle ? BTW, the longest sustained lull, at least in my living memory. David is the expert in this shit, and he tells me, that we have been in that sustained lull, for over 9 years. Pretty interesting stuff really, considering that the average length of the sunspot cycle is usually between 8 and 14 years ?
So, on those grounds, what is happening to cosmic and other rays from the sun, at the moment ? They are at their lowest level. The sun is going through an extended quiet period. Has done for years. So you’re saying that AGW is absorbing those rays. Pretty difficult to fathom, considering those rays from the sun, are at their continually lowest levels seen for nearly 300 years ? Carbon or CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with that phenomena. There is only minimum cosmic radiation from the sun to be able to get through your magic carpet of carbon above anyway, has been the case for over 9 years !
I wonder what the excuses will be from the fraternity, when in twenty years, they realise that they were wrong ?
There are so many processes on this planet that we truly still don’t understand. AGW being one of them. Like most of the fraternity JM you are falling for the hype, and in the process, latching onto a massive straw. Granted, an incredibly lucrative straw, but a straw none the less. Sure you don’t work for the timber industry ?
BTW JM, you still haven’t answered my question, as well as others asked on this page, of
what positive affect will the carbon tax have ? ;
what industries is this carbon tax going to be aimed at ? and;
what difference will a full money bin make to the environment ?
Just found something of interest guys.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
An interesting read ?
Sax. I’m not going to give you an education online.
BTW, I’m curious … in your opinion (IYO) did the Americans fake the moon landings?
Please do. Unlike some others here, I think I have an open mind ?
Hmm, if you thought you had something to counteract the above JM, you would be ramming it down my throat. C’mon man, at least fess up to that ?
The first step along the road to wisdom JM, is to admit to yourself these words ?
“I don’t know !”
Didn’t Julius Sumner Miller once say that ?
In your rebuttal, you neither confirmed, or more importantly, denied, the veracity of the above article. Instead of sprouting one version or explanation of events, wouldn’t it be more prudent, like all true scientific aims, investigate many theories, find your own evidence, and make up your own mind, based on your own research and findings ?
BTW, there still 3 legitimate questions that you have yet to answer. I think I have been fair answering your criticisms ?
Also, you haven’t challenged the veracity of the article ?
How prudent of you ?
Sax, I’ll humor you just a little bit. Try reading this article for a rebuttal of the ice core argument.
You’ll also find refutations of other common denialist arguments on the same site. Get back to me once you’ve read them.
On another note, I have to say that your incoherent ramblings about “it’s the ionosphere wot done it” are different from most denialist lines. In fact apart from you I don’t think I’ve heard them anywhere else but this site.
First from Len, then David Davidson, now you.
You articulate a pretty good lay understanding of the ionosphere but fail to hypothesize a mechanism by which the ionosphere becomes the cause of global warming.
Unique argument, but wrong. Not even wrong.
I am Len, Einstein ! But, after putting my full name up numerous times (which btw you are still too cowardly to do) you should have known that. Again, in a failed arguement, you resort to identity challenges ? What did Iain tell you about that. Fortunate for you, he is obviously watching the footy. But hey, water off a ducks back.
BTW, you were the one who brought up the ionosphere, but without checking your facts, you didn’t know it. Remember your whole argument re infra red ? Oops perhaps ? You opened that door !
You were the one who originally brought up the ice cores. By my presenting that information, just proves how information is conveyed, and how the same evidence can be presented/distorted in different ways in an attempt to prove a premise. The link you provided states thusly ?
There are so many outstanding and unproven factors in this argument, that it makes it moot. C’mon man, you will have to do better than that ?
That was from your own link ! From, from the very first line ffs !
Denialist. For the upteenth time, I am certain that AGW is occurring, but, I am not satisfied that co2 is the cause. My tune hasn’t changed, but your evidence is pretty thin on the ground, and in your end around desperation, the more you attack my person, the more your whole argument is becoming incredibly desperate, irrelevant, and does your premise more harm than good. But keep on, you’re the only one lookng the goose.
Sax: you were the one who brought up the ionosphere, but without checking your facts, you didn’t know it. Remember your whole argument re infra red ? Oops perhaps ? You opened that door !
Sax I don’t understand your argument re the ionosphere. It is incoherent and at odds (at least to the extent that I can understand it at all, it’s such a mess) with long established and understood science.
I’m really not willing to argue with someone who lacks a basic understanding or the ability to organize their thoughts into a coherent framework.
Likewise yourself JM
Perhaps do a bit of reading, and without that standard tunnel vision ?
Remember, a true enthusiast considers evidence from all quarters, whether or not it confirms, or denies their premise ?
You were the one who brought up infra red remember ?
Where does the infra red range reside JM ?
Likewise. You are close minded, and in science, or any other field that requires a minimum of creative thought, that is not only dangerous, but in the end, only makes you look like a dill.
About time you stopped trying to spoon feed us all your unproven rhetoric and dribble. We are dealing with a field that has no exact right answers, like all of nature. It’s all opinion, and should be treated as such.
Again, as such, don’t expect the time not to come, when someone calls you out on your propaganda ?
Sax, infrared is otherwise known as heat. Can you explain what the ionosphere has to do with the space heater I’m sitting next to?
We are dealing with a field that has no exact right answers, like all of nature. It’s all opinion, and should be treated as such.
Physics has exact, right answers. Plenty of them (but not all).
And the relationship between infrared and CO2 is one of those exact, right answers.
Infra red is in the electromagnetic spectrum, hence the ionospheric reference.
Again your premise without elaboration ? Right answers ? What was the bloody question ?
BTW, funny how you are quoting from this article, one I used to shoot down one of your earlier premises with, that you discredited, and now find, that you are quoting from the same bloody article ?
Until you come up with something of substance, I will assume that you are just s/stirring, and ignore it.
You going to answer the below concerns, or are you going to continue to ignore them.
Sure you’re not a labor party politician ?
Sax: What was the bloody question ?
Does CO2 aborb and re-emit IR radiation? Yes or No?
If your answer is No, then I can’t help you. Because the right answer is Yes.
Again the questions get ignored.
This is exactly why, come next election time folks, we should put the Greens LAST !
I think that we will see that happen for certain in the seat of Melbourne at least Sax
What will Bob Browns claim to fame be from this term. I can’t say he has done anything notable. The carbon tax is not supported by the public, why have the millons spent on convincing us it is then.
I’m predicting the Greens will have a significant drop next election, across all electorates. About time too.
I’ll answer these. Not that any of you care. This is some of the most insane climate change argument I have ever read. And I’ve been around:
what positive affect will the carbon tax have ? ;
It will change the bidding order into the NEM, favouring electricity generating technologies with lower GHG intensity.
what industries is this carbon tax going to be aimed at ? and;
Electricity generating businesses. Most of the EITE industries will receive assistance, much as they did under the CPRS model.
what difference will a full money bin make to the environment ?
There will not be a full money bin. As they’ve said time and again, the money will be used to compensate low-income earners, promote renewable energy technology and buy out old generators.
The benefit to the environment will be reduced GHG emissions in electricity and a disincentive on methane emissions from gassy coal mines and underground coal gassification projects.
Evcricket.
Jilly, Sax, Iain, your comments on politics are ignorant at best, deluded at worst.
You already hated the Greens; 86% of Australians didn’t vote for them last election. If you hate them more, nothing changes.
For their vote to drop, as with every party, ever, people who voted for them in the past must have a reason to change their vote. If you think introducing a carbon tax is likely to encourage Greens voters to change their vote, then you really don’t understand politics at all.
Evcricket.
No still don’t get it. I would like to know what is happening to my money and was spent wisely.
Promotion of goods/services (sounds like private enterprise), and welfare payments (that sounds like the government).
And that’s where my tax is going. Think I would have preferred to be naive still.
You still don’t get it, because like so many people in this discussion, you actually have no idea about how electricity is delivered and where Austalia’s emissions come from.
You don’t get it, yet you are vehemently opposed. Genius.
Evcricket.
Evan
It does not matter so much about a drop in the primary vote for the Greens but they did rely very much on preferences to get any of their new seats at the last election and I very much doubt that either of the Majors are going to continue to put them anywhere but last on their HTV cards.
Bandt is only in his seat because of liberal preferences and he won;t get them next time so what d9o you think his chances of holding his seat at the next election are?
As for you other comment can you please lighten up with the acronyms? or at least tell me what EITE NEM mean
Frankly I think that not needing any compensation is a better state of affairs by any measure
The “new technologies” are all many times more expensive than the old and a hot bed of scams and shysters like this one
That is a circular argument that relies upon a belief in AGW and the unproven assertion that alternatives can actaully do the job currently done by coal
BTW ?
Oxygen and nitrogen also absorb infra red, actually more than co2 does ?
Your point ?
Iain, if you don’t know what the NEM is, nor an EITE, nor can be bothered to look any of these things up on the internet, then we’ve got nothing to talk about.
I came here because I thought there might actually be some arguments on the other side. But no. Just ignorant opposition.
Spot on Jilly. He is so ‘drunk’ with a perception of power, that he, as well as his party, have forgotten what he was put there to do ?
Haven’t heard your take on it yet. I am no scientist, but to call someone elses argument ignorant without putting up reasons for that seem pretty arrogant and ill informed to me ? I’ll give you a chance to qualify that statement perhaps, with your own theory ?
The argument is not pointless Evan. Merely, the science frat party has jumped on (along with money and glory hunting politicians), a bandwagon that will do absolutely nothing for the environment. The Greens, by jumping with them, or worse still, the ones that enforced the jump, and dooming themselves and their partners to political oblivion by doing so.
People now do have a reason not to vote for the Greens Evan. It’s called the carbon tax. Wait till it hits the average Joe’s hip pocket. Both the Greens and Labor will pay dearly, the only way the average Joe can inflict the necessary pain to reduce these tosser’s over inflated egos. The Ballot Box !
Put em last ! That will get the message across. No matter how corrupt the voting system is, last is first out no matter how they rig the boundaries ?
Please read and comprehend this Sax. I know you don’t like the carbon tax. Most people who voted Green last election want a carbon tax, so the cabon tax is not a reason for them to change their vote.
So, your vote won’t change, neither will the vote of someone who voted Green. Please explain how the carbon tax will destroy them.
Evan
Just because You are familiar with those acronyms and I am not has no bearing on the veracity of either of our arguments. All it shows is that you hang out among people who argue the issue in those terms.
No Iain, it is what the carbon tax is all about. And I’m being serious. It is designed for none of the things anyone else mentions, apart from changing the bidding order into the National Electicity Market. That is where the revenue will be collected. You must know this to have an opinion, surely?
EITEs are the emissions intensive, trade exposed industries. They have been part of climate change policy since 2007. Again, this is a significant part of the policy. No one knows anything about it, yet many, many of those same ignorant people are opposed.
Talk about hubris.
By adding unecessary cost all along the prodution chain.
Votes won’t change huh ? Wait until this thing comes in, and watch what happens to the new pricing structure, and then come back to me saying the same thing ?
Watch what will happen, when the labor party waste the money that comes in from it. Like they did with the massive surplus they were left by the libs. Don’t say world financial crisis as an excuse, cos that will be crap !
Btw ? The Greens only got 21.6% of the overall vote in the last election.
Hardly a mandate to demand anything ?
So our entire political structure is in the hands of a party, that only got 1/5th of the vote ?
Now there’s democracy for ya !
congrats on another ton Iain !
I REPEAT: THE CARBON TAX WILL NOT CHANGE THE VOTE OF PEOPLE WHO VOTE GREEN.
They know that the price of goods will rise. I am one of those people. I want the price of carbon intensive goods to rise. I want the price of carbon intensive electricity generation to rise.
And this mandate nonsense keeps getting oxygen. Show me in the Constitution, or in fact anywhere, that mandates are mentioned. As always, we live in a democracy. There are representatives who you vote for. Then those representatives vote on things in Parliament to make laws. If enough people agree on something, then it becomes law. Nothing more or less. Mandates do not exist, never have.
Evan
The Carbon tax is first and foremost about one thing and that is paying the price for the support of the Greens to the minority Gillard government, Secondly it is being used for a bit of the old fashioned pork barrelling by Gillard in the hope that she can buy a second term in the lodge. The trouble for us ordinary Aussies is that we will be the ones who will pay the price for this political manoeuvring and it will make no difference at all to the climate.
Define ‘Ordinary Australians’.
Just about everyone outside the urban latte belt will do Evan
PAYE taxpayers !
Ironically enough, Labor’s entire support base ?
I agree with ‘evcricket’ and thank him/her for the entertainment of watching Iain’s ‘opinions’ on the carbon price get totally demolished.
Good work (and a a nice reality check) ‘evcricket’.
Yeah the anonymity sucks. It’s a problem of the public service. Apparently once you join the APS you are no longer allowed to participate in democracy. Thankfully, I should be out soon.
Yours is an entirely valid reason to post under a pseudonym Evan but I also note that you write and argue as if you were doing so in your real name, that is a both a moral and wise way to do things.
Kudos for having worked that out, many writing on the net under assumed names don’t get that at all
Do you guys honestly think that a carbon tax will help the environment ?
C’mon, be honest here. If you do, I feel sorry for you, I really do.
Did the set up of the EPA, all throughout Australia help the environment ? They were given the tools, but not the power to really make the legislation stick in court. Certainly, that had a few victories to hang their hats on, but no where near what the electorate expected. That is exactly what will happen with the carbon tax.
You don’t think, that the average labor voter, with a substantial mortgage over their head, desperately waiting for a government that annually fights their supposed supporters tooth and nail, to prevent a bloody $10 a week pay rise, will stand by and watch, as a new tax comes in, and drops their living standards even more ?
As far as I see it, Iain is spot on. All the carbon tax will do, is attempt to alleviate labor’s massive black hole, they call their bank balance. You carbon devotees have fallen for the greatest of “spins”, and you are so hip deep into it now, that without looking like the gooses that you are, you will stick by the rhetoric until the very end, rather than admit you’re wrong.
Yes it’s a tax that will bring in money Sax, so what! When you say living standards will drop even more, you do understand that our living standards have been rising for years?
I have not fallen for any spin, I see what is happening and I think it’s all good so far.
Your choice of the EPA as an example is not great, as you admit that some good has come from them. That’s all we want from a price on carbon, a start, it won’t fix things overnight but it is a start. If you don’t think we should start, well then we are back to who do you listen to if you don’t like science.
I think most sane people agree that a future based on the opinions of Andrew Bolt is not the way to go.
If you are able to, get a hold of the Bill Shorten exchange with John Faine on 774 this morning.
One of the most deceitful exchanges I’ve ever heard by a person in public office.
One of the freest rides given to someone practicing a deceit I’ve ever seen too.
Sax: Oxygen and nitrogen also absorb infra red, actually more than co2 does ?
Not as far as I know they don’t. Reference please
JM
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
The “Greenhouse Effect” Hypothesis
The so called “Greenhouse effect” is just an hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
The hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2 is based on the claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared radiation.
Only “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared according to this hypothesis.
It has been necessary to falsely claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation in-order to demonise CO2 and other gases and blame them for causing atmospheric warming.
All gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. The fallacy of CO2 “greenhouse effect” is the keystone of AGW fraud.
Air is :
20% Oxygen
79% Nitrogen
0.0385% CO2
Air, pure oxygen and pure nitrogen all absorb more infrared radiation than pure CO2.
It’s pretty out there, and you will probably criticise the crap out of it, but there it is.
Sax (by reference) : It has been necessary to falsely claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to infrared
Bollocks. Show me a reference (and not a denialist site) which says that Oxygen and Nitrogen are greenhouse gases – ie. absorb and re-emit infrared at anything like the same intensity as CO2.
Oxygen and Nitrogen are both transparent to infrared. CO2 is not.
The video/YouTube is utter rubbish. If this experiment worked in the manner presented it would have been accepted as a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal. Has it? No.
This is a simple repeat of of a long debunked experiment from 1905 (I think).
One of the problems with the setup (not the only one) is that there is no thermal insulation between the gas in the container and the wider environment. The temperature measurements have no meaning.
Physics is a tough business, and you have to be very careful in your experimental setup. If you’re not, you’ll screw it up. Review the video and remind me how careful the presenter is.
Not at all.
(So Sax, how’s it going with the “let’s debunk all of modern physics” argument?. Not too well I think)
Oh, and BTW. If this made any sense it would be coherent with all of the physics that has made the atom bomb, the computers we are both using and the internet.
It is not.
You are a devout believer in AGW, well bully for you. I am as well !
BUT I just don’t believe that carbon or co2 as this argument has now transgressed to, is the cause. It is the final result !
It is the human being’s hell bent desire, to totally rape this planet of every resource it has, for his own wealth, that has caused the problem, and continues to cause the problem. Unless that is addressed, you, me, as well as every other human on the f*cking planet will pay the price for this corporate greed.
I am not going to sit here and argue the toss with you, and play duelling internet links with you JM. I won’t be around today. We have a ‘milk run’ to Japan today, so won’t be back until tomorrow, unless I get a chance in the air, so will have to give this a miss.
We have differing opinions and that’s that. For every argument you have put up in the recent month, by simple logic it has been refuted. Obviously, something you are not used to perhaps ?
Makes me laugh.
A pilot chiding the human race for rape and pillage.
Oh the irony.
Still waiting for your response about the Ice cores JM which is most notable by its absence….
Don’t you love the irony ?
Ok we’re up, Davo’s caffeined up, as am I, and he wants the first shift.
It is pretty ironic isn’t it ?
The falcon 900 is one of the leanest aircraft out there. So, yep, the criticism is valid. But you drive a car don’t you ?
Obviously your question re the ice cores was too tough to answer Iain ?
And from a Bachelor of Arts graduate ?
Go figure ?
BTW, look up and wave Gracie ?
JM seems unwilling to say anything to me at present Sax
About ready to chuck out the first array, so will be busy for the next ‘x’ hours.
Have fun with it guys and gals ?