The author craves sense to the position of nonsense.

But in the panicked trenches of the climate change cultists, sense has evaporated along with logical thought.
The world of fear is their world. The lack of self confidence the drover of the retreating defeated.

Like Madam Yoko, a legendary monarch of the Mende people, the task of spreading panic and lies, became increasingly impossible, along with her attempts at denying her femininity.

The warriors of truth lie in ambush. Let the defeated die alone, show no mercy!

Dan

Yes. We know. It's been said time and time again. But there is no point trying to convince the narcissistic psychopaths of the climate clique. Their disease prevents them from listening; and the great unwashed are too stupid and lethargic to take back control through the ballot box. While people in this rooted country continue to vote LNP, ALP and even the Greens, we will continue heading for oblivion.

Consider UAP, One Nation or the Liberal Democrats if you don't want to end up like China. You will probably still get one of the two major moron parties, but with a minority government status, they would have to rely for their survival on the other three. And, boy oh boy, do they want survive for the big bucks and privilege.

What if there is another human factor or activity that is causing global climate change and global warming, a factor which is never mentioned.

For most of the history of the planet it was more or less a closed energy system with the amount of incoming energy coming from the sun. Whatever the various changes in the climate and weather patterns etc were at any given time period (large or small) the amount of energy driving the planetary systems was more or less stable.

Beginning with the industrial revolution much energy or what Thom Hartmann calls Ancient Sunlight was trapped in coal, perhaps oil and of course trees too, began to be released into the global system. And of course more recently by nuclear power and hydro-power too.

Which is to say more and more amounts of now free energy began to be released into an otherwise more or less stable relatively closed system.
In the now time of the "21st" century the amount of such free energy being released into the biosphere is hugely enormous.

What if the means of (to coin a metaphor) letting off steam (energy)out beyond the planetary system is now being blocked or trapped by the increasing amounts of both C02. And the huge amounts of methane too which is the case in the Tundra regions of Siberia and elsewhere too in the Arctic circle.

Carbon dioxide emissions do not figure with Australian voters. Their top concerns are:

More things to be covered by Medicare.
Aged Care.
Australian manufacturing.
Health Care support.
Jobs.

Renewable energy is 15th. on their list.

Net Zero by 2050 scrapes in at No. 39!

Bloody hell, really?

Are these "CO2 is good" articles still getting a running?

Mate it really is time to catch up. Excess CO2 creates warming conditions which are, and going to, cause significant disruption to our way of life, yet you are still wallowing around in what is essentially a 'CO2 is plant food therefore it must be good' meme.

Lifeblood!? true to a point. As a heavier than air gas. CO2 is also known as marsh gas that can and does collect in hollows. And at concentrations above 21% can asphyxiate any of the unwary unfortunate enough to transverse the area during a wind calm! Humans included!

For us, our lifeblood is also heavier than air oxygen! Plantlife absorbs CO2 and aspires oxygen during daylight hours And CO2 at night as some unfortunate predatory insects have found out.

CO2 is now concentrated in the atmosphere at record highs and in uncharted territory! It never ever needed to be that high to support plant life as a lifeblood!

It is for plant life a super fertilizer that promotes plant life. And as it does, the additional turbocharged growth asperates more moisture as water vapour into the environment. And moisture acts like a thermal blanket that traps radiant heat. And because this is essentially what occurs in greenhouses! It is called the greenhouse effect! And CO2 greenhouse gas!

Just as employed scientists told their asbestos miner employers one thing and the public another! So too, fossil fuel company employees, ditto the tobacco industry! This is what has, I believe, occurred here? As rubbish masquerading as informed and literate educational material?
Alan B.

Footnote: if this article tells us one thing? It tells us that money comes before all else including the wellbeing of the planet and all who live on it, lifeboat planet earth.

Radiant heat is not the problem if it is allowed to escape from the planet's surface and out into space, regardless of the source. Be it the heat sinks of large cities or power plants, be they hydroelectric or nuclear!

If I were to sprinkle coal dust all over the ice sheet of Antarctica, I could seriously accelerate the current ice melt. Given ice reflects radiant heat while coal dust absorbs it!

Ash and soot from smokestack emissions does a similar thing to coal dust just not as effectively.

The black roofs of many Australian homes adds to the heat sinks of many large population centres, whereas the silver of corrugated iron reflects much of it!

Which possibly explains why the old up of the ground, Queenslanders with their verandas all around, were cooler? Given they allowed convection of cooler air to assist that outcome.
Alan B.

AlanB

Spray that in English!

Dan

Dan. I just did!
Alan B.

Yes SR, we know you warmists, who have never been able to find a single bit of proof to your scam would like to shut the discussion down, the truth always has a habit of popping up again doesn't it. Just give us some solid evidence that the scam is true, & all argument will stop.

The ball is in your court as usual & will lie undisturbed as usual.

Then again the misnomer of greenhouse gas. A greenhouse keeps the heat in by stopping convection. No gas does that, & there have been a number of papers showing that CO2 aids convection, & thus COULD have a cooling effect.

Yep, there is that word so beloved by the warmist scam pushers. COULD when you don't have any measurements to show it does. I threw it in so you can feel at home.

Calling Co2 the life-blood of the planet is a tad hyperbolic. But equally the CO2 fetishism that sees it as the fount of all evil is just plain silly, let alone the opposite of true science.

It is very clear that the relatively minor increase in CO2 levels (from 3 parts in 10000 to 4 parts per 10000) has had a significant effect on greening the planet with expansion of vegetated lands in many parts of the world. Again, this is something the CO2 fetishists were prefer wasn't true, and therefore its never really discussed. No COPs to discuss the value of that greening.

Equally, although its true that the so-called natural levels of CO2 (c.280ppm) had a significant warming effect on the greenhouse earth, its equally clear that that effect is diminishing rapidly. This is the reason the CO2 fetishists moved the goal posts. Previously we were assured that we needed to keep temperatures 2c below 1850 levels. But when it became clear that we weren't going to get to that level the limit was changed to 1.5c. There is no science to justify that change.

The great fear was a doubling of CO2 from assumed 1850 levels and much of the scare campaign is based on that with calculations like TCR and ECR being specifically based on a supposed doubling. But its equally clear that even at current levels, its virtually impossible that levels will double this century. Again, that isn't discussed. Inconvenient facts rarely are.

Carbon dioxide is like orange juice, to much can kill you.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock?

Look mate you have had truckloads of evidence placed in front of you over the years. You normally choose to put up a token fight defending your tainted ideology then scamper off to come back at a later date claiming you have never seen said evidence as you are doing now.

It is an old and frankly boring game much like yourself.

But hell, I'm bored enough to have a play again.

So answer me this question, why do cloudless still nights get much colder that cloudy ones?

"why do cloudless still nights get much colder that cloudy ones?"

Why do CO2 fetishists who really don't understand the science, continually confuse weather and climate?

Dear mhaze,

Read his post then mine and then realise you really need to stop being so clueless.

I did. It doesn't mention clouds. And clouds are water vapour not CO2 which is what the thread is about.

What happens on a cloudless night has nowt to do with climate. Cloudless nights do affect weather but not climate. Hence my post.

What are you suggesting SR.

Could it be that you think all the CO2 goes to bed with the chooks, as soon as the sun goes down?

So as that "warming" CO2 is still up there at night, cloudless or not, perhaps you could explain why it is no longer warming the place.

As mhaze points out those clouds that warm the night are water vapor, not CO2. The difference with cloudy nights is the water vapor is still doing what it does, reduce radiated loss. The difference with cloudless nights, when there is less water vapor to reflect radiation shows just how little effect the CO2 really has. About tuppence worth of stuff all. Double the CO2 & you will have about four-pence worth of stuff all.

Thanks for highlighting that little bit of science. Any more bright ideas to help disprove the false theory of CO2 caused global warming.

Dear Tweedle DumB and Tweedle dumBer,

In a night time scenario this is what happens.

Cloud cover captures infrared radiation emitting from the earth's surface and radiates it in all directions thus raising the surface temperature from what it may have otherwise been without clouds present.

Increased CO2 levels 'captures infrared radiation emitting from the earth's surface and radiates it in all directions thus raising the surface temperature from what it may have otherwise been without' elevated levels of CO2 present

I hope this assists.

Yawn.

Dear Hasbeen,

You initially dismissed CO2's role in global warming saying it may even cause cooling. Now you are saying it causes warming but that warming is only minor. What is your supposed tuppence worth in temperature?

Wow. I've seen some daffy notions dressed up a vaguely science-y thinking but that takes the cake. Lack of H2O causes cooling, therefore CO2 causes warming? Makes perfect sense </sarc>.

By the way, if CO2 is so good at "captur[ing] infrared radiation emitting from the earth's surface and radiat[ing] it in all directions" why doesn't it perform this wonderous feat on cloudless nights?

Dear mhaze,

You write:

“Lack of H2O causes cooling, therefore CO2 causes warming? Makes perfect sense </sarc>.”

Sigh. As much as I acknowledge you struggle with this stuff I really didn't think I would be going right back to basics for you mate.

This obviously will surprise you but water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

As to whether CO2 performs “this wondrous feat at night” it does.

“The build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human emissions reduces the amount of radiation released into space, which increases both the night-time and day-time temperatures. However, because at night there is a much smaller volume of air that gets warmed, the extra energy added to the climate system from carbon dioxide leads to a greater warming at night than during the day.

This higher sensitivity of night-time temperatures has also affected the number of cold-extreme nights we have seen in recent years. The number of extremely cold nights has dropped by half during the last fifty years, in contrast to the extreme-cold days which have decreased by a quarter.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080530.htm

You have revealed just how far behind you are on this stuff. While it is something obviously expected from someone like Hasbeen I find it a little concerning that you are that far behind.

Let me know if there are some resources I could direct your way to bring you up to speed.

Time to go find another discussion SR. You show your self to be totally ignorant of any science, every time you touch a key board.

Dear Hasbeen,

Dreadfully sorry if the last post went over your head old boy. I would encourage you to try and keep up but we both know that is unlikely.

However I should think it was a little churlish for someone who struggles with even the basics to claim another ignorant of science.

Geee! This is almost an unservicable diatribe replete with propagandic epithets. The air we breath in is whatever is the composition in the immediate vicinity - CO2 averaging 417ppm right now. For most of the last 2 million years i.e for human evolution and brain development, has been closer to 300ppm CO2. We know that being in a closed room that gets to 600ppm CO2 will have a deleterious effect on cognition. The higher the CO2 in the ambient atmosphere the easier it is to get to 600ppm inside a building and the harder to maintain it lower. Like all things in the lived environment, there is a sweet spot that enhances human life or acts as curatives. Below the amount, life support drops off and above that amount damage increases. Is CO2 good for life, bad for life? It all depends on ppm. My vote is getting back to human sweet spot - 300ppm.