Climate change

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by Marclau

Ken,

You read which part about the bill??? It's some 1700 pages long with further white papers making up the bill !!!! Have you read it fully and understand it's implications fully??

I'm not trying to be smug in any way but imposing all these restrictions and guidelines certainly and most definantly means a family cannot grow any home grown organics or vegetables for fear of fines, penalties, etc etc for breaking the law !!!!! Furthermore, no family could possibly afford the $$$$$$$$$$ needed to implement the law.


O'K I agree that certain scientists may not be experts in the said field but that doesnt prove they are out of their depths............history should have taught you that........just look at aids........scientists and experts told us it was derived from Monkeys in Africa.......these same epxerts lead us to believe this was all true just because they wrote papers etc etc......30 years later we know this was far from the truth......

And dont even get me started on cancers & superbugs.......chemo therapies etc.......

It's called a word search I couldn't find anything to support your claim, so I asked if you could point out the relevant part of the bill.

Back on subject, so why should we ingnore what the climate guys and gals are telling us and listen to outsiders.. is simply because we don't like what they are telling us.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Peter,

The idea the natural climate change only occurs over timescales of million of years is quite common and supports the suggestion that the present warming is so rapid that it must be anthropogenic. This a misconception.

David

Dave, thanks for the link to the paper, which I have just read....and then wondered if you sent me the right link or went beyond the abstract.

Adams et al. constantly refer periods well in excess of a few decades (typically, several thousand years ) and only speculate about changes over periods equivalent to a human lifetime. They candidly admit many, many times the data simply does not have the resolution, is too localized
or both.

But I rather liked this quote:
"If sudden, dramatic climate changes could occur ..... then they could perhaps occur in the future during our present interglacial, especially if we perturb the system by adding greenhouse gases"

Their conclusion (I cut through the waffle):

...sudden shutdowns or intensification (of the gulf stream)..... by the (climate) disturbance caused by rising greenhouse gas levels....is like '...an ill-tempered beast, and we are poking it with sticks"

You have not produced one iota of evidence that current CO2 levels are not man made (its OK, no-one else has) and in light of the above...you've simply made a stronger case we (humans) are in for a rough ride.

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Yes David the same scientists that gave you that little factoid are most probably alive today.

We are not dealing with an ancient Earth that had no biological negative feedback mechanisms.

We are all in deep trouble. I do not care for myself. I like most of you have children and grandchildren.

I will now turn up the heater as it is cold in Melbourne!


Bert

Hahahahaa just dont turn on the fan speed up !!!

[theodog (Jeff)]

This question is of genuine interest to me, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to post.
I have 25 acres of which 1 to 1.5 is taken up by our house, gararge, roads etc..
1/4 of our property is cleared and covered by native grass, the rest is mature dry schl woodland with invasive cyprus pine. I run no stock.
Can anybody calculate the amount of carbon this would be locking?

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

It's called a word search I couldn't find anything to support your claim, so I asked if you could point out the relevant part of the bill.

Back on subject, so why should we ingnore what the climate guys and gals are telling us and listen to outsiders.. is simply because we don't like what they are telling us.

Ken,

Not at all.........we just should be listening to everyone and not just those involved who always rely on funding $$$$$$ which they receive from the large industrial groups/companies etc etc..........
I also never said we should ignore our planet etc........In fact I think it simply filthy and seems to be getting worse......oil leaks, rubbish etc......

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by theodog

This question is of genuine interest to me, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to post.
I have 25 acres of which 1 to 1.5 is taken up by our house, gararge, roads etc..
1/4 of our property is cleared and covered by native grass, the rest is mature dry schl woodland with invasive cyprus pine. I run no stock.
Can anybody calculate the amount of carbon this would be locking?

Jeff, it depends on how many members are in your family .........here is a formulae to assist:

Members in family X Pets X animals X number of farts per person/animal - air intake for breathing X numbers of trees on your block..........arghhhhh forget it.......

[leinad (Dan)]

The report covers the United States, with the reports projected global temp. increase by 2100 of 2 - 11deg Fahrenheit, after doing some googling today I found this of general interest that some might find interesting?;

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12084

http://icecap.us/index.php

[glenc (Glen)]

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/c.../journals.html

The bulk of this list below are field-specific journals; some of the most widely cited articles are those that made it into the few, highly prestigious general science journals, listed first here, with their Eigenfactor (EF) ranking among all journals:

• (#2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (of the U.S.) a.k.a. 'PNAS'
• (#3) Nature publisher: MacMillan
• (#4) Science Magazine - the Journal of the A.A.A.S.
• Proceedings of the Royal Society (of London)

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by glenc

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

The bulk of this list below are field-specific journals; some of the most widely cited articles are those that made it into the few, highly prestigious general science journals, listed first here, with their Eigenfactor (EF) ranking among all journals:

• (#2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (of the U.S.) a.k.a. 'PNAS'
• (#3) Nature publisher: MacMillan
• (#4) Science Magazine - the Journal of the A.A.A.S.
• Proceedings of the Royal Society (of London)

Sorry Glen,

And your point is???

Now we are beginning to rate the sources behind the pros and neg reviews of the fors and againsts???

Doesnt matter which way the cookie crumbies the way I see it........the minute those who believe its not as bad as what others say, and the source or point of view comes from a 'science or climate' related periodical, now these are being judged based on 'popularity'..............only to discredit that GW is not occuring................damn, this is getting picky. Maybe we need to come back to this thread in 10 years time when it's all over and there is something else to argue about.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Marclau,

I'm not sure what Glen's point is either but I can't see how he is trying to discredit AGW. I imagine he is suggesting one should assess the research published in peer-reviewed journals rather than read some of the fantasy published (on both sides of the debate) by self-appointed gurus with no training in the area. Of course, you won't find a paper which presents definitive proof one way or the other. You still have to sift the data, assess its strength and weakness, understand the issues and generally be across the subject.

The assessment of journals is not quite a popularity contest. They are ranked by the scientific impact of the material they publish. It's a fraught and contencious measurement but the results in the fields I know something about are pretty reasonable.

[Marclau (Marcel)]

O'K, understand..........no problem then if that is the case.........I suppose I've got my back up after some flaming on previous threads....

[Octane (Humayun)]

If you're referring to me, Marclau, I didn't flame you. Flaming would be name-calling and outright mudslinging.

You asked for opinions and I gave one (or two).

Regards,
Humayun

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Octane

If you're referring to me, Marclau, I didn't flame you. Flaming would be name-calling and outright mudslinging.

You asked for opinions and I gave one (or two).

Regards,
Humayun

Lets get one thing straight; some members were making reference to both myself and a personal friend re our credibility. To me, thats 'flaming'..........end of story.
Never, did I say or make reference I believed in the thread topic. I simply asked for thoughts. Few took the topic totally out of context by introducing other dubious subject matter and relating them to my thread. I simply was'nt expecting this to becoming such a hotly and political hotbed. Very similar to the GW threads......

Your understanding of 'flaming' also is incorrect. Refer to the following reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

[Octane (Humayun)]

My apologies.

Regards,
Humayun

Originally Posted by Marclau

Lets get one thing straight; some members were making reference to both myself and a personal friend re our credibility. To me, thats 'flaming'..........end of story.
Never, did I say or make reference I believed in the thread topic. I simply asked for thoughts. Few took the topic totally out of context by introducing other dubious subject matter and relating them to my thread. I simply was'nt expecting this to becoming such a hotly and political hotbed. Very similar to the GW threads......

Your understanding of 'flaming' also is incorrect. Refer to the following reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Octane

My apologies.

Regards,
Humayun

No hard feelings Humayun.....I understand some topics are perhaps bordering on the 'fors vs againsts' and hotly argued........all is good.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Were stuffed I'm leaving when's the next ship out of here

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by leinad

.......... I found this of general interest that some might find interesting?;

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12084

http://icecap.us/index.php

A pity you didn't dig a little deeper. John L Casey of the "space Science Research Centre"...gee.. that sounds cool....looks to be a scammer.

I could not find a *single* paper he has authored (though there is a fellow by the same name who seems good at microbiology....hardly a NASA engineer's forte').

I found this disturbing. How could any "expert" work for 30 years at the very highest levels of government and industry yet be invisible to the journals????

Similarly ICECAP have simply re-hashed many climate change myths into
a legitimate looking bundle and seem to be asking for a little cash for their efforts.

To clear up all doubts on this issue, I've decided to establish the
"Sutherland Centre for Climate and Environmental Research" (so it won't be confused with Suitland Met, we'll call it SUCCER for short)

I put myself in as CEO (UWA graduate with over 30 years of aerospace and high altitude atmospheric research & have acted as advisor to the Federal Government). Might put Bert in as a consultant. We need your support
and will accept cheques, Netbanking, Visa or Mastercard donations to continue our critical climate change work.

While climate change is proving to be a *really* vast subject, it only takes a little critical thought or look at the peer reviews to see whether something true, reasonable, requires more investigation or just plain mis-information.

[Gallifreyboy]

SUCCER is an excellent idea but clearly needs financial support. As a UWA graduate too I would like to look after the paypal donations for SUCCER for those folks who don't trust the other transfer methods you mentioned.

[theodog (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by theodog

This question is of genuine interest to me, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to post.
I have 25 acres of which 1 to 1.5 is taken up by our house, gararge, roads etc..
1/4 of our property is cleared and covered by native grass, the rest is mature dry schl woodland with invasive cyprus pine. I run no stock.
Can anybody calculate the amount of carbon this would be locking?

Great, for a small annual research grant (umm -teacher salary level) from below mentioned Centre's, I'll be glad to measure the diameter of randomly selected trees about 4' 4 1/8" above the ground.
Oh, What do you want my paper to say

[leinad (Dan)]

I did say, it was of 'interest' if anyone wanted a read;
Yes they are a lobby, not climate scientists.
There are papers on that site.

Al Gore has showed his alarmism to millions, No scientist there.
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri of the IPCC(Political Body) is an engineer and economist, no scientist there.
so the common person should ignore the preaching of those two, and really dig into the scientific (peer-reviewed) papers written by 'scientists' to really make up their minds of for or against; it becomes tricky of course when power hungry politicians are talking money; media is one-sided, and the consequences are dire.

I'll continue to read through those peer reviewed papers some more.. there's quite a few.

Here's another site that may interest others:
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sc...cientists.html