The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon delusions and defective models > Comments

Carbon delusions and defective models : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 11/4/2016

The models fail to explain Earth's long history of changing climates and ignore the powerful role of interacting cycles in the solar system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The only delusionary modeling I've seen in reference to climate modeling is contained in the vested interest and cherry picked article? And although factual, lines up facts like any good conformation bias factual cherry picker.

Ignored as historical event is history and a paleontological record which shows a period of around 90 million years ago, when according to that record, nearly all life on planet earth was exterminated.

And as a result of increased volcanic activity, that increased Co2 in our atmosphere and given the greenhouse effect and subsequent warming to an additional 2C, also melted the tundra releasing millions of tons of methane, which together with the additional Co2, pushed average ambient temperatures to above 5C, which seems was enough to create storm and tempest to the point of extinguishing nearly all life.

Co2 is now at hitherto unknown record levels.

The british isles was a barren salt laden barren wasteland, regularly swept by howling winds that regularly exceed 300 kilometres per hour, where plant life was all but eliminated.

We all need absolutely essential plant life, to create the very oxygen we breathe, feed the herbivores that are the food source of all carnivorous animals up the food chain.

Recent event in our northern climes demonstrate, if grasslands are inundated for a long period by flooding rain, it can take many months for those essential grasslands to recover. Yes there are cyclical events such as the solar furnace warming and cooling, waxing and waning.

And the sun has been in waning phase since around the mid seventies.(NASA)

And not what you'd expect in the face of record breaking heat waves!

Simply put, we have multiple choices of much cheaper carbon free energy, which would allow us to massively outperform all the old economies still welded to carbon producing energy and the enduring obfuscating vested interest that stand to lose their shirts if we change away from their preferred fossil fuel cash builder!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 11 April 2016 10:40:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viv if you had something to contribute to the scientific understanding and modeling of the climate, you would be writing a paper in a science journal. Maybe I've missed it please give us a link to it.

But what I really think Rhrosty has already, your article is full of misrepresentations and statement that have been demonstrated repeatedly to be wrong.
Viv you should consider becoming an economist, it is an area were you can be wrong most of the time and still make a living.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 11 April 2016 10:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where do they find these people,its going to be embarrassing when they have to apologize and admit they were conned or received cash from US billionaires through shell company's,spivs like Monkton and sundry vested interests.
Posted by John Ryan, Monday, 11 April 2016 10:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A stupendous, awesomely super, article Viv Forbes.

May the force of hydrocarbons, solar + batteries, but not wind power be with you.

Poida
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 11 April 2016 11:03:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viv, what you state has been known for many years. The serious question is why so many politicians acquiesce in policies which will have no discernible impact on climate but have caused, and will cause, serious economic damage which reduces our capacity to deal with whatever unknown future befalls. There seems to be collective madness on this issue, fostered by those whose imperatives are the imposition of far-left policies and who have found climate scaring a wonderful vehicle for their political ascension.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 11 April 2016 11:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Twilight of the Climate Change Movement" https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/10/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

Interesting new post up this morning.

And this chart shows how interest has been fading in the media, including blogs and twitter, in the English speaking media, since the peak was reached during at the "Copenhagen Conference of the Parties" : http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline The chart is updated daily. (however, caution is needed because sometimes some data sources change or are truncated.)
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 11 April 2016 11:29:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The relentless war on carbon is justified by the false assumption that global temperature is controlled by human production of two carbon-bearing 'Greenhouse Gases'.

Rubbish. Nobody is proposing that global temperature is "controlled" by (i) two carbon-bearing greenhouse gases, or (ii) by human production of them.

The proposal is that global temperature is being *influenced* by human production of green-house gases, of which there are several - the predominant one is water vapour.

The reason there is a focus on CO2 is that it is a better indication of total greenhouse gases because it is more uniform in the atmosphere than water vapour (clouds prove that!). And because CO2 and water - H2O - are the end-products of the combustion of hydrocarbons (including, by way of digression, carbohydrates).

Yes, there is a carbon cycle. It is just that man is adding to it by

(a) mining and combusting vast amounts of hydrocarbons previously locked deep in the earths crust; and

(b) deforesting.

.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 11 April 2016 12:24:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the politicians love the global warming scam, it has proved an excellent means of transferring billions of dollars to supporters & campaign funders.

Obama has given half a billion dollars of tax payer funds each to just 2 companies owned by his supporters. Both are now bankrupt & gone, so good was their product & business model. Of course their founders walked away with much of that funding personally.

Our academics have found a lovely gravy train in funding for global warming research. In fact a number of our universities will be in serious financial difficulty, if the flow of funds for this pretend science stops.

Anyone keeping an eye on Europe knows they are backing away from the consequences of their spruiking global warming, & alternative energy, just as quickly as they can. Having wasted so much money, they can't now admit it was a disaster, but they are terrified the planet will prove their scam was just that.

You can't blame the average citizen for being conned, but academics have known for years, but just don't want to give up such a great gravy train.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 11 April 2016 5:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: Of course the politicians love the global warming scam, it has proved an excellent means of transferring billions of dollars to supporters & campaign funders.

Who better to illustrate this than Bill Shorten? If Labor is elected, he is going for 50% electricity from renewables by 2030. The resultant substantial rise in electricity prices will please no one but the renewable power generators. Furthermore, there will not be any measurable impact on global warming.
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 11 April 2016 11:51:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a fact that no scientist can deny, no matter they be a physicist, climatologist, paleoclimatologist or a chemist etc:

Between 1880 and 2015 the global average temperature has changed from -288degrees Kelvin to -288.8 degrees Kelvin, this represents an increase of just 0.3%. Is this significant? No, it is not even worth worrying about. This science does not lie, but the political 'climate change or global warming' mantra has become like a religion and is therefore sold as undeniable, it's just plain madness.

There is warming over a hundred + year timeframe as I wrote earlier, but at circa 0.3% is it worth worrying about, definitely not. We are being hoodwinked.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 4:36:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom - "The resultant substantial rise in electricity prices will please no one but the renewable power generators. "

Rubbish my power company Origin, asked me to sign up for 50% renewable power and it adds about $20 per quarter. have been on the plan now for almost a year and if anything, my power bills have gone down thanks to a bit more conservative turning off appliances when going to bed etc and plenty of sunshine keeping my solar panels busy

Hardly the end of the world and they can provide a higher level for not much more.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:42:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are literally thousands of papers written about climate change in peer reviewed science Journals. No single person can read all papers; and usually people confine their reading mainly to the discipline they are involved with. The ARM 11 year research program conducted in the natural environment at two locations showed the relationship between CO2 and IR. No modelling involved, conclusions based on data collected. The conclusion drawn from collecting data for 11 years almost on a daily basis was that the science was shown to be right in relation to what's occurring in the atmosphere as stated by scientists.

Quote from Phy.org

"The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html#jCp

Abstract:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

A much earlier study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 11:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Young people in the US have brought their concerns in relation to climate change to a Court setting and won.

http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/event/740/breaking-victory-landmark-climate-case

Another article about the same matter:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/10/3768092/climate-trust-suit-moves-forward/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=13&elqTrackId=003984bd6f134ebd95727c75e0ee3097&elq=8812e2c1cb46473e8687ff49e4f3fd34&elqaid=29763&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5407

Meanwhile a number of US State Attorney Generals plan on investigating ExxonMobil for allegedly misleading investors in relation to climate change.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 1:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here you all go again in a pointless argument !
It does not matter whether the warmists are right or wrong.
We have to leave oil and coal before oil & coal leave us.

Interestingly there has been a report of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
technology that has completed a test run of 350 days at 1 megawatt
output with the output being 50 times the power input to run the system.

http://tinyurl.com/jp45xmz

It is now mired in an argument about the patent and whether the
licensee Heat Systems, has breached the licence conditions.

I have watched this process for a a few years now and it does seem to
be getting close to commercialisation. The next year should be
interesting as it could remove all worries about base load.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 9:45:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Here you all go again in a pointless argument!"
I hear you Bazz. It's annoying when people who respect science get rubbish like this served up as an 'editorial' from someone that studies soil science, not climate. The myths in this petty little Agit Prop piece are so numerous as to be breathtaking. The human race has known for nearly 2 centuries what CO2 does and by how much it does it. Yet this farmer wants to tell us that he knows better than the atmospheric physicists! It's obvious from the word go that it is pointless debating an ideologue like the author: but what about the lurkers who might be undecided?

"Peak oil" and coal and gas won't get us before climate change can. There's enough CTL and GTL and electric cars and even recyclable boron-powered cars to keep us going through peak oil until ALL the coal is burned. That's the point! There's way too MUCH coal and other alternative hydrocarbons: this coming from myself, a former peaknik that helped form Sydney Peak Oil and present stuff to the NSW Cross-Benchers about it way back in 2005!
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz

Arnold Schwarzenegger got it right when he stated that regardless of whether climate has been changing due to natural processes, or man has had a major impact; we need to do something.
Those who write against the science are often trying to slow down the process of getting across the message something needs to be done.

Politicians will only move if they believe that the electorate is behind them; those who tend to have contrary views on climate change hold up important decisions.
Arguably the LNP is divided in views on climate change and their "policy" is extremely weak; Labor has better policies though not strong enough.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:41:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green said;
There's way too MUCH coal and other alternative hydrocarbons: this coming from myself,

Do you really believe this ? In a way you are right but we can not afford it.
Just look at the enormous investments being made in search & development
and the very poor returns.
Coal is becoming too expensive for most countries and oil has
reached the point of Goldilocks is dead. It costs more to get it out
than the drillers can sell it. That is why Shell pulled out of Alaska.

The ERoEI of coal & oil have fallen to levels where they are marginal.

Ant;
No pollie party gives signs that they understand what is going on.
All the efforts being put into reducing CO2 is a waste of time & money.

The money should be going into research on base load generation.
Solar & wind cannot do it for more than a day at a time.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 4:20:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthropocentric climate change is far more complicated than stated.
Here's an entertaining and informative video that addresses all his BS
"Contemporary Climate Change as Seen Through Measurements"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujf6EIGRUdw
Posted by 124c4u, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 2:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy