Well, that reduced important things to silliness.

No, they are not! Just poles apart!

We do face very real harm as a consequence of climate change, and people are dying! There are folk, farmers aand farmer's wives right here committing suicide as a consequence of the worst drought in living memory and entirely unprecedented! And this drought the hottest and driest we've had is the end result of climate change as were the unprecedented fish kills!

I do agree with you however that Andy tells porkies! Some of them totally outrageous! Moreover, I cannot agree that the employment interests of 12,000 CMFU member should be given higher priority than the 25 million Australians!

I get that a clearly disingenuous Eric doesn't believe climate change is real or that an additional average rise in ambient temperatures wouldn't do very much!

And I get therefore he is clueless/denier with an IQ roughly equal to the ambient temperature?

He critiques Greta for not knowing how to address man-made climate change! What? You believe a 16-year-old kid knows how we might mitigate, man-made climate change!?

Well, Eric, if you are able to take the wax out of your ears then engage brain before putting mouth into gear?

I will layout, chapter and verse how we might do that and with a combination of measure that will do just that as well as massively growing and turbocharging our economy! TBC.
Alan B.

Cont.
The first cab off the rank in addressing climate change is our transition to carbon-free energy!

That energy should be reliable, dispatchable, affordable and safe!

Moreover, cheaper than coal i.e., MSR thorium!

Thorium is the most energy-dense material on the planet, less radioactive than a banana/four times more abundant than uranium!

As cheap as lead!

Compare.

A 350 MW solid-fueled with enriched uranium, light water reactor, requires during a 30-year operational lifetime, some 2551 tons of fuel. And create from that 2550 tons of nuclear waste.

Whereas, a 350 MW thorium> U233 fueled reactor (MSR thorium) will during that same 30-year, operational lifetime, require a single ton of much cheaper fuel.

Why, the security guard out front would cost more than the total fuel bill!

Further, this reaction will produce as an almost free byproduct, many grams of, miracle cancer cure, Alpha particle, bismuth 213!

We have a cancer annual death toll rate more than double the annual road toll! much of which would be treatable with CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE, alpha particle bismuth 213!

I'm sure even Eric and his moribund mate Andy, would agree, saving all those annually wasted lives, would be a worthwhile objective even if that then takes billions of the profit curve of big pharma!

Now we do not need to spend decades researching MSR thorium when we have a successfully operating prototype to reference as a starting point, that being the unpressurised MSR thorium research reactor at Oak Ridge between the '50s and the '70s, moreover, we can adapt MSR MM, say the 350 MW FUJI?

Same principle, different fuel/heat transfer medium

Molten salt works well enough in tried and tested solar thermal!

So we need to crack on and replace aging coal-fired as they're decommissioned with MSR thorium!

As we do so, lower prices below 3 cents PKWH!

A worthy objective as is the fact our power supply would also be carbon-free, massively turbocharge an ailing, debt-laden economy! TBC.
Alan B.

Cont.
Now, this is all well and good but will cost billions and lost energy export dollars!?

Not so, if we but use the brains we were born will and sign up Australia as the world's nuclear waste repository and earn annual billions for providing said service!

ASAP! YESTERDAY! STOP, WITH THE PREVARICATION AND ENDLESS SPIN AND JUST DO IT!

Then use MSR thorium as waste burners that in effect just sees nuclear waste as unspent fuel with a further 98% of recoverable energy to be recovered in I assure you in perfect (walk away safe) safety with less rogue emissions than those now coming from gas or coal-fired plants!

And with that change, give ourselves centuries worth of virtually free, carbon-free energy. In reactors and distribution systems others will have effectively paid for!

Finally, our energy exports could be replaced in full and then some with undersea cables, transmitting electrical energy to all, our recipient energy customers, in metered supply we set the price of, via graphene cored cables! All the above paid for with the income earned as a repository and our own leverage super fund of 2.5 trillion! And the interest earned, TAX-FREE!

Given we do that? Quite massively reduce both transmission and distribution losses currently hovering around 75% as a combined total! And triple the available profit as the first consequence of this pragmatism!

Don't give up your day job Eric as your ability to spin is hopeless!
Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago!
Alan B.

Our political conversation must shift away from the
mass infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it.
It is not progressives or conservatives who are
ruining our world. It is the tendency on so many
people's parts to think that their way is the right
way and that people who disagree with them are bad.

It doesn't ultimately matter so much how we degenerated
into such mass disrespect for the rights of others to
hold opinions different from our own. What does matter is
that we commit immediately to individual healing.

We can disagree vehemently yet appropriately. Disagreement
must be respectful or the disrespect will poison us more
than either side's position in the argument ever could.

It is more important that we renew dignified and respectful
dialogue with those who do not agree with us than that we
keep slavishly congratulating those who have the wisdom
to see things our way. (smile).

Foxy, we are faced with three choices;
1. Accept that the IPCC is correct and spend all available resources,
money and real, to reduce CO2 to zero levels. Pay the cost whatever it
is and accept the resulting living conditions.

2. Accept that the IPCC is correct but only act when we see an effect.
Disregard the Climate Emergency as a crowd Panic Effect.

3. Accept the alternative theory and continue on as we are now.
There will be a couple of hundred years to prepare for the cold times.

They survived OK in past cycles even if they did have to abandon
Greenland and stop growing wine grapes in the UK. Perhaps you might
be able to have Ice Festivals on the Yarra ? ah la the Thames !

I fail to see why the world should be stirred into action by an ill informed teenage retard who has been indoctrinated by her parents.

Greta is unlikely to understand any science on the level to comprehend climate change and her ill tempered and incoherent rants are at best embarrassing.

But Shadow, you must remember she can "SEE" CO2.

God help us.

'Greta is unlikely to understand any science on the level to comprehend climate change and her ill tempered and incoherent rants are at best embarrassing.'

well a former Australian of the Year is no different. Who gave him that award. Was it the same year Arafat won the Nobel peace prize

Shadow Minister,

You are in no position to comment on this young
lady's comprehension skills and or influences.
Just as we aren't in any position really to
comment on your comprehension skills ( or lack of).
Stick to what you do know. And we shall try to
do likewise - without judging you too harshly.

terrorist hide behind children and the UN now do the same. It really is a disgusting tactic. And an intellectually challenged child at that!

"We can disagree vehemently yet appropriately. Disagreement must be respectful or the disrespect will poison us more than either side's position in the argument ever could."

Well done Foxy.

Read more carefully Alan, and think about Foxy's comments. I do believe that Climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed. I just don't believe that climate change is the primary cause of ecosystem collapse and extinctions.

' Food prices have gone up 80% in the last 20 years.Of course, there is no reason for Andrew to mention any of that, since that doesn't help him sell his business-as-usual world view.'

come on Eric even a dumbo like me can see your cherry picking (the very thing you accuse Bolt of). Sure you quote 80% increase in costs of food over the last 20years but increase in wages the last 20 Years? I doubt you would want them published. Also power prices are massively above 80% higher due to the gw religion and massive renewable subsidies. If you want to stand up for proper science then practice it yourself without your narrative.

Foxy,

Greta Thunberg's screeching and snarling, according to you, is acceptable and nobody should point out her deficiencies. Apparently you believe she's perfectly entitled to be deficient and nobody should draw attention to it.

Her UN address - posturing on a foundation of hypocrisy - was entirely fact-free. That is how one may and should judge her: are her rants based on verifiable facts? No. Does she rely upon any facts to support her positions? No. As always with the global warming Left, Greta has nothing to offer: no facts, no solutions, no insights. As usual with the Left, her only demand is "somebody should do something", which is no solution at all.

So here are some facts: water vapour is 4.0 per cent of the atmosphere by volume; carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere by volume. Of that 0.04 percent, three per cent is produced by humans (= 0.00012 per cent by volume - global warming potential (GWP) = 1). Various trace gases have GWPs ranging from 25 (methane) to 22,800 (sulfur hexafluoride).

So I shall personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize for Physics if you can explain to us all how that 0.00012 of human-produced carbon dioxide overwhelms the impact of all other atmospheric gases and causes global warming.

Now, tell us again why we should take Greta Thunberg seriously.

BTW, Foxy, I don't "hate" you: I simply think your arguments are as vacuous as Greta's.

Hey runner,

For your information -

The Australian of the Year award is unique in that
it's sponsored by a national government and commands
broad public support. Which Australian do you so
strongly object to and why?

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1994 jointly
to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin
for their efforts to create peace in the Middle
East. Which one of these men do you again object
to and why?

calwest,

Greta Thunberg has been personally attacked by
many in a variety of ways. She does not pretend
to be an expert at 16. She is simply asking for
action on climate change and she's not vacuous
as you claim. She sticks to what she knows and
presents scientific reports as required on
what action needs to be taken. She does not suggest
what they should do - that's not her area of expertise.
She points to the scientific evidence and does not
allow her objectors and their slurs to get to her or
make an impact on her.

I'm pleased that you stated you don't hate me. I would have been
very surprised if you did. I don't know you and you certainly
don't know me.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. Arguments are something we all confront
at some time - best to remember no one likes or supports
an abusive, illogical, or weak debater. We need to argue at
a mature intelligent level, not an emotional one. Although
this may not be easy for a 16 year old girl. Try hard as she
might.

Foxy, handicapped children should always be shielded from dissension
like global warming. The way she has been exposed is very likely to
make a long term influence on her behaviour.
She just did not need that exposure. Her parents were very ill advised
to allow all this to happen to her. It may take a long time to repair
the effect as she is now in puberty.

The Svenmark theory now seems to have explained the cycles that the
earth has experienced for the last 3000 years. There was a warm period
in the -1000BC century from what I read recently. So that makes five
warm periods of which we are aware including the current one.

Foxy,

You are an idiot.

BTW Foxy,

Thanks for dealing with the facts!

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.

2018 Nobel prize in economics won by Nordhaus and Romer for work on climate change and growth
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former US Vice President Al Gore

runner you think a 20 year time frame is cherry picking? 30 years is 46%. Longer than that reflects huge changes in technology and the world economy.
Worldwide energy prices have gone up 207% in 30 years, 144% in 20 years and that has nothing to do with Australia's renewable energy policy, that is world wide price. Those price increases are due to demand increasing faster than supply.
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=energy-price-index&months=360

Wages growth has been flat in Australia.
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/3127664/HILDA-Statistical-Report-2019.pdf

Anyone equating little Greta Thunderbox with Andrew Bolt is suffering from the same naivety and lack of real world experience that all other 16 year old school children suffer from.

Individual action to prevent climate change or even, reverse it!?

Yes, we could do it as a united world!

And that's where it fails every time!

Individual action!?

Park the car walk or cycle everywhere. slaughter all the domestic methane emitting animals and hit the off button in the household or industrial power supply!

Then gather wild berries etc as our own individual food supply!? Or if protei deprived run it down with a stone tie to a stick!

Others survived with just that followed the seasons and the rainfall! And rarely lived beyond 45 years! So some of us could as well!

Each individual family would require a minimum of forty acres as a self-sustaining woodlot for fuel and another ten acres of arable land for sustained food production.there'd need to be a dam to breed and harvest fish.

The main crops would vary with the climate, need to be storable and probably include rice potato and sweet potato. Houses would be mud brick nad straw/thatched roofs Be simple and rudimentary. we'd have to find wild herbs to treat all our illnesses

Yes, individual action would work if every surviving human adopted a sustainable lifestyle practice! One can see hasbeen Eric, Andy and all the indolent wealthy accepting that proposition!?

With the best will in the world, at least a full two-thirds of the population would need to be sacrificed before there was enough arable land to share among the surviving remnant!

Those on the hit list? How do we obtain their willing sacrifice?

Let nature take its course and watch from the sidelines as millions starve or fight each other for what's left?

Stand still as they clear-fell whole forests as they search for fuel and food!?

Given our numbers and parlous position!

Will we be among those selected for the ultimate sacrifice?

After all, Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world!
And our total river system delivers less flow than that flowing down the fly!
Alan B.

Foxy says: [Greta Thunberg] "is simply asking for
action on climate change."

But Thunberg, Foxy and the others promoting "action" on climate change can't actually specify what action needs to be taken - indeed, they can't even demonstrate that there's a problem in the first place.

Thunberg is an unfortunate child. She has been manipulated. So have the students who take a day off school on the same pretext - just as Mao's Red Guard were used to intimidate and destroy his political opponents. And more recently we have three and four year old pre-schoolers presenting a "petition" to NSW Labor's entirely powerless shadow minister for the environment.

Useless posturing by all of them.

There are to different sides to the same coin! Those that refuse to do anything because they believe this is cyclical even though all the credible evidence tells us this is not normal! And then the other side, gormless greens with an agenda, refuse to accept a technological, fix!

Why!?

Because it's technological! Yes, it could work and even reverse climate change all while allowing 9 billion humans to survive!?

And that's a problem!

Too many people! Some will have to go! Yes, we've all got our hands up as volunteers for the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the rest! Ha, ha!

The other side of the coin, which probably includes Eric, Andy and the rest of the ultra-conservative mob, don't believe, they say, that climate change is real, cause if it were? We'd have to stop burning and exporting coal, gas and oil!

And if we did that they almost to a generic man, would go broke! And all social security, benefits and pensions would have to go!?

And the only real reason for their denials and conservative consternation!? You'd imagine what would happen o their support base and plum jobs then! Eh?

I mean, if the Snowy were not yet done and they were asked to do it, they'd throw their hands in the air and say, we can't! Too big! Too expensive!

Yes, our ancestors with much less, money and manpower did just that, but hey, they were supermen and knew how to stretch a dollar as far as it would go, by incorporating the usual economic flow on factors!

Won't work for us, because we've sold our souls to foreign interests!

Meaning all those economic parameters that worked for our ancestors are off the table and by deliberate design!

I mean you have to really work hard and at it to turn the third wealthiest nation and a creditor one at that into a debt-laden basket case, going to hell, in a handbasket, laden with unprecedented, record domestic and foreign debt!

Tha's why we can't and they could! Get ti!?
Alan B.

Look, suppose we just focused exclusively on the economic argument for the energy proposals I've countenanced here!?

How could such massive vision be implemented?

Well, simply a step at a time and one after the other!

And as off-budget infrastructure that is paid for with reserve bank cheques and remain in the debit side of the ledger until completed, then transferred to the credit side as an asset with at least an equal value to the TEMPORARY debt created to enable their immediate construction.

And backed by the cash flow, we could earn if we could just stop with the completely bogus fear-mongering and crack on with us becoming the world's repository for the current and future stockpile of nuclear waste!

What's is needed is a Leader with vision and balls to just crack on with signing agreements and just get it done

And has to include the construction of some research reactors,i.e., MSR thorium, for all the reasons outlined earlier!

And once we've ironed out any remaining bugs, start immediate mass production in the final model.

Given what we already know, could be done inside a sen year timeline and neatly dovetails with the imminent decommissioning of our aging coal-fired plants.

In the interim we could be cracking on with the manufacture of graphene cored flat and round cables and even if we start using them as reinforcement for the new graphene highways that also recharge our electric vehicles on the fly, we'll be ready to lay them on the seabed a soon as we sign up customers for or new electrical and carbon-free energy!

Given our reactors are also tasked with burning other nation's nuclear waste, able to supply it, east, west, north and south, at prices no other will be able to compete with!

That's it, and laid out solely as the economic case! If others see what we've done and feel they're being compelled to follow suit or lose market share all across the joint!?

That would be a good thing and leading by example, leadership!
Alan B.

Dear calwest,

You wrote;

"So I shall personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize for Physics if you can explain to us all how that 0.00012 of human-produced carbon dioxide overwhelms the impact of all other atmospheric gases and causes global warming."

What an utterly vacuous and idiotic statement.

The increase in concentration in our atmosphere by a third of a significant greenhouse gas due to human use of fossil fuels is accepted by all but the mentally enfebbled.

Why have you gone to such great lengths to dismiss it?

I will ask the same question of you that I have asked of many others. What physical property of CO2 do you want me to dismiss so I can arrive at the conclusion that increasing it to such a degree has zero impact?

Pathetic.

calwest,

Greta Thunberg presents scientific evidence and reports
from scientific experts. She does not tell people
what to do and how it should be done. She leaves that
up to scientific experts. All she is doing is asking
for action to be taken on climate change - not on how
or what should be done. Were she to tell them what to
do and how to do it - would lose her credibility - because
as a sixteen year old that is out of her range of expertise.

Now, calling me an idiot? Why do you feel the way you do?
If you can prove you are right - I will consider amending
my views.

It seems to me that you are really talking MUCH more about
yourself than about me.

Ericc, I noticed your post where you said that CO2 and various other non-H2O greenhouse gases were the control knob that controlled temperature, and that water merely responded to heat. I think you need to rethink that. Here are two graphs that demonstrate that is not true. The first graphs paleo temperature and CO2 concentrations. It looks like there is some relationship at times, but not at others, and we've had high temperatures with high and low concentrations of CO2, and temperature has dropped as CO2 rises, and vice versa. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHgyuDaVUAAdhN5?format=png&name=small.

The other is the Vostock Ice Cores where we see CO2 increasing after temperature increases, and declining after it declines, demonstrating that heat increases in the globe cause outgassing from the oceans of CO2. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4l-5ebUwAUmu_a?format=jpg&name=small You'll also notice that there has been no observable reaction to modern high levels of CO2.

CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas, but its relationship to temperature is moderated by a whole load of other factors, and vice-versa. It's effect is also logarithmic (demonstrated in the first graph), and above current concentrations won't raise temperature much. I'm much more worried about the next ice age.

Agree with you about habitat change. And of course there is just normal ongoing evolution. This mammal was supposed to have gone extinct from climate change causing sea levels to rise https://t.co/345SPnFmrO?amp=1. But then you find sea levels haven't risen in the area https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHiyNQvUEAAAR3J?format=png&name=small and it had a very limited habitat - one island - so it probably just wasn't viable any more.

Good point, Cato; we have all probably asked ourselves what these bad mannered disturbers of the peace want done. What can be done that hasn't already been tried and found to be totally useless in reducing CO2? All these scientists we are supposed to believe haven't come up with anything new recently. Instead of silly old men cheering on a child in the UN, they should have stood up and said, "You know all the answers. What do we do next? Snarling 'how dare you' out of you very smackable little gob doesn't help."

SteeleRedux says:

"The increase in concentration in our atmosphere by a third of a significant greenhouse gas due to human use of fossil fuels is accepted by all but the mentally enfebbled.[sic]".

Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere amount to about 0.00012 per cent by volume (three per cent of 0.04 per cent). That's an increase of a third of an essential plant food.

The hottest year on record in Australia was 1952, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was 311ppm, about three quarters of what it is now.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-bureau-of-met-disappears-very-hot-days-graph-showing-the-most-hot-days-in-1952/

That's from our very own Bureau of Meteorology, though I'm sure they're working hard to homogenise those facts out of existence.

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide since then has had no effect whatsoever in the observed temperature records and the computer model projections have been uniformly wrong. They all failed to predict the current near 20 year "pause" in warming - a pause that could exist only if the predictions were correct, which clearly they are not.

Nobody should assume you're "mentally enfeebled", SR, just an ignorant dunce. Try sourcing your information from somewhere other than the ABC or the ALP.

There is NO established causal link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and increased global atmospheric temperatures. In any case, what do you propose is the "ideal" global atmospheric temperature from which we have, according to you, strayed, given that on any particular day or night, actual temperatures vary widely all over the planet?

Hi Cato,

I've already explained Greta's position.
Her emotional reactions do seem to have helped get
her message across. Even to the extent that she has provoked
other emotional reactions from many and she certainly has
attracted both large numbers of followers as well as
detractors and critics. She has also enabled discussions on
the topic worldwide which in itself is an achievement.

I don't think that brushing her and her views aside is
very worthwhile, because obviously they have gathered
momentum and support from some unexpected sources.

Hi Foxy,

On what basis do you pretend to "explain Greta's position"?

One of her "positions" is that people are dying because of global warming. So, please explain. What were their names? Where did they live? What were the causes of death?

Greta has nothing to offer and it says a lot about her zombie followers that they would defer to the better judgment of a 16 year old on the autism spectrum.

Hi Cato,

I stopped reading your post after the first few words.
When you're ready to have a rational conversation
I shall be pleased to continue my inter-action
with you. Insults don't sit well. Nobody likes
or supports an illogical, abusive poster.

In the meantime - read my post
on page 5 about Greta, and also get hold of a copy of the 2018
IPCC Report that Greta submitted to Congress. It should
clarify things for you. That is if you are serious about the
issue in question and are not just interested in venting
your spleen against climate change for personal amusement.

Foxy,

You are bereft of facts, so all you can do is emote.

HI GrahamY - I don't want to come across as an expert on the atmospheric chemistry aspects of global warming or climate change. My previous comment was a quote from the American Chemical Society website. I think that is a pretty good source.

Regarding your first graph the IPCC says that "The net effect of slight imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years has been to reduce atmospheric CO2. The rates of these processes are extremely slow, hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf

The IPCC recognises your point about several other factors besides CO2 being important to warming. Over the millions of years there have been periods when energy from the sun was 4% of what it is now so of course temperatures were lower, even when CO2 concentrations were higher.

Habitat protection / ecosystem protection, extinctions, Climate change are generationally challenging problems because 1) they require world wide efforts to be effective and our current civilizations aren't good at that and 2) it is almost impossible to set a dollar value to the impacts and we aren't very good at solving problems that we can't set dollar values to. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

cato
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
"All of the ten warmest years have occurred between 1998 and the present, with El Niño contributing in five of these years. The warmest year on record was 2016, some 0.8 °C above the 1961–1990 average."

Hi ericc, did you look at the graph? You claim that temperatures are lower now than they were in an earlier era, when you say sunlight was weaker. How is that consistent with CO2 controlling the temperature? But actually the graph shows both temperature and CO2 higher, but the CO2 is higher by a much larger factor than temperature, pointing to a relatively low climate sensitivity to CO2.

I'm not going to deal with your quotes, because they are assertions by various bodies, not arguments or proofs. The problem with this debate is very few people will argue things on principles - they just want to rely on authority. You just can't have a debate on that basis. It just becomes a shouting match. And the genius of the scientific method is it treats arguments and facts as important, and opinions, and reputations, as unimportant. Polling experts is not a good way to find the truth.

ericc, if you believe the current BOM of other authorities current temperatures, after they have tortured the hell out of the official record with their homogenisation processes, I have a very attractive bridge I'd like to sell you.

Only a simpleton, or a fellow traveler could possibly believe the rubbish we are daily bombarded with.

All, this is the crux of the matter as I believe was expressed by the
Turku University group. My understanding of their paper I emphases.

The IPCC models do not take account in their models of the effect of clouds.
This left a greater portion of warming allocated to CO2.
Turku's calculation allocated only 0.1c increase in warming caused by CO2.
The rest of the warming is allocated to heating by less cloud and heat
not reflected back out to space.
Their calculation shows the historical warm periods occur at times of
low cloud and high sun & sunspot activity.

Some years back I remember that a major argument was how sensitive is
temperature to the to the maount of co2. Many still argue that the
amount of co2 cannot raise the temperature that much.
The above might well be the explanation.

GrahamY – I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. The quote from the American Chemical Society reflects the current conditions in the atmosphere. Conditions which change very gradually, over thousands of years. The IPCC recognises that at times over millions of years of history factors like radiation from the sun, volcanic activity, rock weathering, methane and other chemicals in the atmosphere have been dominant in the impacts on temperature. The IPCC includes the work of Dana Royer and Robert Berner in several of its publications. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I agree with you that there are several factors that impact global temperature not just CO2 and when considering what the global temperature was then or is going to be in the future, all those factors must be considered.

The IPCC says that they control for the conditions other than CO2 in their models to make the models relevant to the next 100 years. They also incorporate how water vapour will be impacted based on the temperatures and do their best to model how clouds affect the feedback of radiation.

I include quotes and references because I did not do the first principles work myself. I am referring to the work of others, so I include the references from sources I consider viable. That way the original source can be evaluated by my readers to determine if it is accurate.

First and most important point is people adding hyperlinks to other websites need to delete the ‘s’ from the https component otherwise it won’t hyperlink.

Second, can anyone here or anywhere please tell me which is supposed to be the correct global mean average temperature and to what degree exceeding or not is within acceptable habitable standards for us poor proles to thrive.

Despite claims to the contrary, the IPCC do not model natural variability when modelling supposed anthropogenic impacts on climate change, they are modelled separately, this is unprecedented and unscientific.

Additionally, the absorption of, and subsequent release of co2 by the oceans and seas lies at the heart of the resultant temperature changes, if the tiny changes are measurable at all.

Currently so-called ‘Climate Change’ is a political issue, not scientific. There is no consensus in science, or at least there shouldn’t be?

Current climate science does not stack up in favour of anywhere near the panic riddled headlines and the rhetoric of politicians and their minions. There are plenty of expert climate scientists who clearly don’t support the new dogma, unfortunately they get little to no airtime or exposure by the current crop of kool aid swallowing mass media.

Galen

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that promotes plant growth, i.e. the greenhouse effect!

It can and does trap radiation in the infrared side of the spectrum. As it improves and promotes plant growth like fertilizer, it also promotes their normal aspiration. Their ability to draw up available moisture and add it to the atmosphere.

Given what occurs on a cloudy winter night and when the air is dry, we know that clouds are also a thermal blanket. So, more luxuriant plant life, CO2 promoted, more moisture aspirated into the atmosphere!

And basic high school science!

It's called as a total CO2 promoted plant life and with that very increase, accelerated moisture aspiration! The two things not unrelated, but both related and part of the cause and effect phenomena, we call climate change.

Climate change and unprecedented heatwaves and driest hottest droughts that simply shouldn't be happening now! Given we have been in a normal cyclical waning phase of the sun (since the mid-seventies) which should have seen the joint cooling and the ice everywhere advancing! And not what we're having now!

If like Andy Hasbeen and cohort, you cannot, will not see the evidence of your own eyes! It's because you buried your heads in some, warm and comfortable space or are completely bereft of normal human empathy!?

As for Greta being intellectually disabled? So far away from the truth as to be completely risible! Einstein and dozens of other historical geniuses also had Asbergers as do I!

So why don't all you geniuses start bagging and destroying (intellectually disabled) Einstien's theories with the massive power of your huge minds! Given he and Greta both have/had Asbergers!
Alan B.

Foxy sweetheart, you're wasting your time and you're being tag teamed by our resident deniers! And just to use up your allowed quota of posts!

Nothing you say and no amount of credible evidence will change those views, not changed by the visible evidence of their own eyes!

If 97% of bona fide, climate scientist have reached consensus on climate change and that we've for the most part caused it! As have a reported 94% of Ozzie, you know, the rational ones!

Given that's so? Then why the resistance to just doing something about it and at the same time, turbocharging our economy! Plus creating an energy template other nations will have no choice but emulate!

It seems some folk are able to put their own narrow pecuniary interests above all else including the very survival of their own Grandkids!

Climate change can be ameliorated and with the proposed solutions and quite massive recycling and lots of changed farming practice! And as we adjust, lots of folks will make a shipload of money, if that's their gig or important.

I just wish we had A Leader somewhere with the testicular fortitude compassion and a moral compass that's still working, to just get on and do something/row the boat!

Cheers, Alan B.

Bazz,
>The IPCC models do not take account in their models of the effect of clouds.

WRONG!
See http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf

> handicapped children should always be shielded from dissension
> like global warming. The way she has been exposed is very likely to
> make a long term influence on her behaviour.

What patronising crap! Children deserve to know the truth, whether or not they're handicapped (and FWIW, Greta isn't).

>The Svenmark theory now seems to have explained the cycles that the
> earth has experienced for the last 3000 years. There was a warm period
> in the -1000BC century from what I read recently. So that makes five
> warm periods of which we are aware including the current one.

But the current one is much warmer than it can explain. There is no longer any reasonable doubt that CO2 is responsible.

Dear Alan,

Thanks for your kind words.

I've written in the past that few people would deny
that the planet has a finite amount of resources
or that it can tolerate only a limited amount of
pollution.

If world population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation continues to spread around the
world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues
at an increasing rate - and if all these things are
happening - where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions would be
that, one way or another, sweeping social changes await us.

Or in simple terms - take a nice new house with a great
garden with two people living in it. Now imagine in your
head this nice image.

Take the same house and move on e hundred people into it.
How long will it take before the whole property will get
trashed?

So too with our planet - if we don't look after it.

cont'd ...

Dear Alan,

Over the past quarter century, pollution of the environment
has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the
planet and the health of its species, including ourselves.
The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one
to solve, for several reasons.

First, some people and governments see pollution as a
regretable but inevitable by-product of desired economic
development - " where there's smoke, there's jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's
emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries'air
or food.

Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with
little public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourthly, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and some times when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to limit the effects of pollution, but the
populous less developed societies are more concerned with
economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it.

Further control of pollution is politically difficult, however,
for the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit the
necessary resources to the task.

I have been reading the reference you gave me. The tenor of it all
seems to be rather negative as to the effect of clouds. There is a lot
of dense discussion on the matter and also cosmic rays and it does not
seem to dismiss the idea, just that it is not consequential.
Anyway I am no expert so why don't you take it up with Kauppinen & Malmi ?

When dealing with children always be careful, especially one with
those sort of problems that you do not lead them away from their
comfort zone. It is a recovery path you need.

Aiden additionally, I think the IPCC may be working on too short a time scale.

Off Topic

Heil Generalissomo Trump for personally pulling the trigger, thereby smoking ISIS Leader ABBA Dabba al-Big Daddy!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-28/al-baghdadi-death-trump-victory-analysis/11644620

But...not for long.

"ISIS quickly replaces dead leader with former Saddam loyalist, say sources" http://intelnews.org/2019/10/28/01-2656/