Spot on, Ammonite !

Hello Joe,

Of course it's possible "that global warming brings about extremes, including extreme cold" - but it's not about "faith" as you seem to infer, it's about science. There is a difference.

The "cold" you are now experiencing is not due global warming - it's primarily due to La Nina losing its intensity.

Think about it Joe, 1998 (one of the hottest years on record due to El Nino) was hardly hotter than 2010/2011. There is an underlying trend that is masking natural variability.

Planting of trees and soil modification is important - and there are numerous studies that have been written on the subject. Have you read any of them? Do you know how much land is required to be planted in Australia under the Coalition's so called 'direct action'?

Joe, I certainly don't lose any sleep over what I do. If I was to lose any sleep at all it would be the way the ordinary 'joe/janes' of Australia have been 'dumbed-down' by the current negative ideological approach by the Oppsosition.

Anyway, rising CO2 levels are not the only factor Joe - but it's a significant component, despite the howls to the contrary.

Stay warm :)

Thanks Bonmot, is that a yes or a no ?

So ....... la Nina and 'underlying trends' mask actual temperature variations, day to day and year to year. They do not represent some mighty leap of faith in something, like science ?

The problem with something which explains everything - if only one would believe - is that it ends up explaining not very much. When something like AGW (which I believe in, in a half-hearted way) can be used to explain extremes of hot AND cold (and probably sea-level rise AND fall as well for all I know, not being much of a scientist), is that it begins to sound like the boogey-man of my infancy, or Satan to devout Christians - everywhere, and responsible for everything bad. As I told my designated Jehovah's Witness man this morning, if only I could BELIEVE. Actually, I was pulling his leg, I'll never believe, poor bugger.

As for tree-planting and soil improvement techniques, I'm happy with their possibilities. It's a big country, and such broad-acre remedies have plenty of room for their application.

Oh well, time for my afternoon nap :)

Jo

"I fervently want to believe in global warming"-Loudmouth

Why would anyone fervently 'want' to believe such a thing?

I only reluctantly believe it because that's what the data is telling us. I don't 'want' to believe it. When the actual data tells us otherwise (other than the opinions of amateur weatherwatchers, hack journalists and bloggers with 'mathematical qualifications' of course), I will change my mind.

But I would never 'fervently want' to believe such a thing, that would indicate some sort of schadenfreude against the entire human race.

Bugsy

>> But I would never 'fervently want' to believe such a thing, that would indicate some sort of schadenfreude against the entire human race. <<

Me either. But I do believe in consequences and taking responsibility for our actions. If we clear fell a forest, I know we destroy more than just trees, we destroy an entire eco-system of flora, fauna, bacteria and a balance that was, no longer exists.

Species of creatures we may not even have discovered, let alone have understood are becoming extinct as I write these words - by the actions of humans. We cannot control the devastation wrought by earthquakes, tsumanis or cyclones but we can modify our behaviour.

If we pollute our water systems and air, the pollutants do not magically disappear.

We use all fossil fuels, they are gone forever.

Be wonderful if the earth was just a magic pudding, but I don't (sadly) believe it is. Fervent belief is for the religious.

Loudmouth

Thank you for your positive response to my posts - such a rare thing positivity.

:)

Bugsy,

I should have written "I want to fervently believe in the existence and dangers of AGW". Sloppy writing.

No, Ammonite, the world is not a magic pudding, but it does seem to have a degree of resilience. Someone - perhaps on another thread - wrote about a balance between naturally occurring CO2 and the Earth's capacity to absorb it. Why should there be one ? What if the Earth was able to absorb much more CO2 than naturally occurs ? I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm just wondering: how much 'natural' CO2 can the Earth absorb, given 'natural' circumstances in one case, and given actual man-made circumstances in another case ?

What impact would mass tree-planting have on reducing that CO2, back to a level that the Earth can take up ? Or wind farms + solar energy + geothermal energy + mass tree-planting ? i.e. put far less in, take far more out ? Or are these just dumb questions ?

I'm not a scientist, but I do vote, and I have to have some confidence in the options that might be available, and whether or not they are necessary on the one hand, and efficaceous on the other. No, one cold season doesn't confound long-term trends, but a relatively cool decade goes some way to doing that. Maybe even Satan loves dogs, he's not all bad ;)