mhaze

Tim sought to undermine climate scientists in his article.
You suggest that I'm trying to brazen it out.

Yet, you are not able to answer the questions I have put to you.
You have not given a response to what has caused Lake Poopo in Bolivia to dry, it was the second largest lake in Bolivia. Lake Titicaca, the largest lake is not in good shape.

Tim mentioned Antarctica in his article, the sea ice extent is right down at present, deniers have pushed hard the view of expanding sea ice in the past. But, the important factor though is not the sea ice extent; it is somewhat a red herring. The grounding points of the ice sheets are the important factors. How stable are they?

Yes, and thanks for that mhaze. I hope that the indians aren't simply gilding the lily here and produce a working model, if only to bolster interest.

Incidently, while I was reading up on indian progress, I stumbled across an article, which claimed some boffins had managed to combine hydrogen and Co2, to produce power kero, or jet fuel, utilising solar technology.

There was a nice photo of a machine, the alleged technology.

Now if correct, that's what I call renewable.

You might take a moment or two to read up on an australian invented two tank digestor, which apparently turns organic or biological waste into enough methane to completely power the average home 24/7 from the waste it produces?

Include scrubbing and the methane will it seems, power Australian invented ceramic fuel cells, with spare capacity to burn, maybe enough to keep a tesla recharged and ready for the daily commute? Or a produce a salable surplus of around 50%?

Incidently did you see the recent doco on the guy that manufactures the telsa. We were taken for a ride and witnessed second hand the amazing acceleration of his drive with a range which is near enough to 500 klicks?

I have heard some advocates claim that once you have driven one of these high performance electric vehicles, you'll want no other.

Incidently, you might read me on other threads, where I've advocated mining the reef, a clue which should rule me out as a rabid obsessed greenie! And I echo your sentiments on technology.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

"CO2 is increasing and human activity is contributing to this, but there is genuine scientific debate about how much this affects temperature. More than three-quarters of all anthropogenic CO2 release has occurred since 1945, but there is a pattern of overall warming since 1850, and there have been shorter periods of overall cooling (e.g. 1940-1975). Thus, the pattern is not well explained by man-made CO2."

The above is why they didn't publish the article, it's a whole
heap of rubbish, intertwined with a few snippets of fact.

A good article, rather gently outlining the dishonesty of the supporters of the “human caused” global warming assertion. Thanks, Tim.
Bugsy, we all remember that you are a lefty greeny, and an arrant supporter of nonsense, you do not have to post more nonsense to remind us. Other than the disingenuous UN and a few failed academics, who believes the nonsense about the Barrier Reef?
A Royal Commission into climate fraud should be the top priority. Billions have been wasted in failed attempts to show a measurable human effect on climate.Money would be better spent exposing the climate fraud supporters.
When global warming stopped almost 19 years ago, it demonstrated what nonsense of the CO2 hypothesis. The human effect, as we all know, but the fraud supporters will not admit, is trivial, and not measurable.
The flea, being the dishonest climate fraud supporter he has proved himself to be, uses the baseless and scurrilous term “denier”, although as a fraud supporter he has no science to deny. Refer us to science which shows a measurable effect on climate which is human caused, flea, or apologise to the realists you have called “deniers”.

ant,

Come on! You said that "Tim is wrong about CO2 not reacting with infrared radiated long waves".

but he never opined one way or the other on such a reaction. If you're right about his assertions, show us where he said anything about "infrared radiated long waves" or else GYB and own up to an error or misreading or reading between the lines or whatever helps you to salvage some pride. But don't pretend that you accurately reflected what he said.

As to Lake Poopo, I haven't bothered to respond because raising it as an example of AGW is too silly for words. This is a lake that is incredibly shallow (average 3 meters deep) and feed from just one source which is now being partially diverted for other uses. It has run dry up to 7 times in the last century the most recent being 1994. But each time it has refilled. IF it running dry is proof of AGW then is its refilling proof of the opposite? As I said, too silly for words. But a drowning man will clutch at any straw, I guess.

Valley Guy, you might consider the science, before you post baseless rubbish here.
Robert Carter, an honest and competent climate scientist, summed up the position
“Although at least -$50 billion has been spent on climate research, the science arguments for a dangerous human influence on global warming have, if anything, become weaker since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988.
our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate