O/T...CLIMATE HISTORY

Hi doug & Dusty,

I agree with you.

A couple of years ago a friend was in Poland when they had their hottest day in 270 years.
I asked if that was due to global warming???

It was before the industrial revolution began so what was the cause. (The natural ying and yang I suspect)

According to some scientists I have heard on the ABC radio Sea levels during the last ice age about 15000 years ago were between 16 and 160 metres higher. I can/t remember which but either way that is considerably higher than today.

That is evidence that sea levels rise as the planet cools down.

This happens because there are 3 atmospheric circulators either side of the equator which transfer equatorial ocean water back to the poles as snow. As heat is the engine that drives this process then the warmer the planet becomes the lower the sea level becomes and visa versa.

Another scientist was saying the other week on ABC radio that there is no evidence that CO2 has contributed/caused global warming. In fact she said that records show the the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years. To me that makes more sense.

Why do the headlines say " As the planet warms then sea levels will rise"!

There is plenty of research funds available but only if "The Sky is falling Henny Penny".

This carbon that we are releasing into the atmosphere was in fact in the atmosphere 400 million years ago ( there abouts)
It was the giant fern forest according to my information.

I belong to your school of thought Doug.
Regards,
Bruce.

Doug

Have a look around this site Predict weather many articles that give credence to your research and debunk this current green/global warming debate. Very interesting site.

Note - We have also been following this guys long term weather predictions for the last 18 months and he has been remarkibly accurate for SE Qld

Cheers


A

Gday Doug,
You just made my day.
I can think of a couple of breeds Im certainly not going to miss at the moment.

Cheers

Hi doug,
Havn't read your links yet. But I will.

No I didn't get it back to front, that is axactly as the scientist said it. Global warming sea levels dropping, global cooling sea levels rising.

This is our problem, one scientist says this and the other says that.
If someone doesn't like their argument, they can find some one who supports their view. This is the dilema, who do we believe.

Some say sea levels are rising yet the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years. This seems logical when considering the comments by the scientist I have been quoting. On the other hand we have the warming theorists saying sea level rise is due to warming yet the Ice Age records belie that.

Some of IT makes sense some of THEM don't.

Interesting stuff in that reply there to Doug.

regards,
Bruce.
Kempsey NSW

John Laws was a vehement believer in the natural warming of the planet and seriously opposed the views of the people who used other global warming ideas for political advantage. He collected almost unlimited information to debunk these views and it is still on his website even tho' he has retired.
John Laws

Ian

If anyone would like to read an alternative view, I suggest this site:
SkepticalScience
A lot of articles written about the "myth" of global warming are just nonsense, especially the ones that mistake weather for climate. Make up your own mind when you've seen how complex it all is.

Cheers, John

Here we go again - bored Doug?

Cheers
Greg

Doug, you are right and wrong on this. Yes, the Earth has had periods of massive climate change and population extinctions before. What is different about this one is the speed at which it is happening. Previous changes have either been (a) superfast, as the result of some planetary trauma such as in the case of huge meteorite hits which caused very fast climate change and massive species extinction (as was the probable event which wiped out most dinasaurs) or (b) very slow as a result of natural changes such as continrental drift or solar radiation. In the case of (b) the changes took place very slowly and the Earth's lifeforms could comfortably adapt.
What is different this time is that we have a very fast change not linked to a planetary trauma. The only data that anyone has come up with that explains this change is the human factor. The modelling originally developed for NASA to look for signs of life on other planets has tracked anf accurately forecast the current changes since the early 70's. Their forecasts remain precisely on target which tends to suggest that the modelling used is correct. Example. That modeling correctly forecast when the world's permafrost would begin to melt. The real crunch is forecast to come around 2020 .
Today's self interested politicians and industrialists who want to try to deny the data are a bit like those, politicians, tame company scientists and industrialists who for decades denied the data on smoking and asbestos to avoid the consequences of taking responsibility.
The real danger around 2020 is forecast to not be the climate change itself, but the human population's reaction to the huge movements of population that will result from people trying to move from one part of the world to another.

As a previous post said, we are talking global averages. You can't discuss this in terms of one location's climate or weather. The only thing that counts is overall global stats, and they have risen significantly and at an accelerating rate since the industrial revolution. The one person whose work everyone wants to ignore is James Lovell. The greenies hate him because he advocates nuclear power. Some of the crazy right hate him because they don't like his conclusions re the next 100 years. And some of the really crazy right (the really craziest of the fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jewish groups) oppose him on the grounds that it is all natural and they tend to think it means the end of the world after which their own particular brand of God and his(her?) followers will inherit the Earth and all non believers of their particular religion will get their come uppance. and therefore they oppose anyhing that they think will slow down the Day of Judgement. They are often the same lot who can't accept evolution.
Lovell is the person whose research while he worked for NASA drew attention to global warming. This came about accidentally through his development of what is now called the Gaia principle. Lovell's modelling as far as I can see remains the most comprehensive on the subject and his forecasts have been spot on.
Look, there is nothing I would like more than for global warming supporters to have got it all wrong. But that is just not the way the evidence stacks up. Arguments that scientists support warming theories because that is where the $ are are laughable. The politicians and industrialists are more than happy, desperate even, to throw $ at anyone who can make a convincing case that GW has it wrong. But that just isn't the way it is stacking up. There really is no longer any debate about whether it is happening, the only debate is about how quickly; whether it can be reversed and if so how and how much will that cost.
If Lovell is correct, and so far it is his forecasts have been the most accurate, it's now too late and all the carbon schemes etc that the pollies are tryinmg to sell us to convince us that they are d"doing something" are BS. When the permafrost began to melt three years ago, more stored CO2 began being released from this source than anything humans can now do to reverse it. We need to be spending $ not on trying to fix it, but on the infrastructure we will need to live with it.

I think the whole way this debate has gone is a sad commentary on the decline of science teaching in the west and the rise of the kind of "new age" thinking that has so many in the west believing in flying saucers and intelligent designer creation.

The saddest part of this arguement is that people feel their ideology is correct. Anyone with half a brain (ie not braindead), would realise that as ordinary citizens of this nation, we don't have enough personal knowledge to make an absolute stand either way. 99% of what you find on the internet is garbage. Other media is not much different.

Anyone who feels strongly about this subject and hasn't done their own well documented research, is simply a zealot pushing a warped agenda that comfortably aligns with their life style and/or "religious" beliefs. Such people have little respect for the truth and even less for the people around them.

R.