Global warming pause explained

[bob10]

Dr Karl explains, Bob


Global warming 'pause' explained › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm)

[ATH]

Like most scams it's a great money spinner for a great deal of people especially those that revel in the jolly junkets associated with them.
I believe climate may well be changing but don't believe we've got a lot to do with it.
I also think we should be polluting the planet as little as possible for all sorts of reasons but wouldn't call CO2 pollution.
Try living without it.
When the major polluters start doing something instead of it all being the fault of western taxpayers who have to fund the crap, just maybe I'll stop being so cynical.:D
As for the IPCC run by the Indian charlatan whatever his name is (I've forgotten now) that's just a vehicle for him and a good few others to make money and have a great lifestyle.
AlanH.

[ramblingboy42]

doesn't matter what scientist you use Bob , someone unqualified always knows better.

[Mick_Marsh]

This I think is the imortant part of the article linked to:

What is causing this heating? Various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the incoming energy from the Sun. The greenhouse gases let the Sun's energy enter the atmosphere, but stop some of it from leaving. The amount of extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by these greenhouse gases is equal to the energy released by some 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs each day.
The current carbon dioxide levels are about 40% higher than they were in the 19th century. They are also at their highest levels for the last 800,000 years. Indeed, over the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels stayed within the range of 170 - 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution.
That makes the sudden recent jump to 400 ppm over the last two centuries really quite astonishing. In fact, in the year 2013, the carbon dioxide levels grew at the fastest rate ever measured since reliable global records began.


doesn't matter what scientist you use Bob , someone unqualified always knows better.
I'll agree with that.
People should be prepared to back their opinion up with supporting evidence or make it known it is unqualified opinion.

[DiscoMick]

Thanks for that.
I learnt a new word - zetajoule: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of energy.
Always good to learn a new word.

[TerryO]

There was a comment in there that summed it up really well no matter what side of the argument your on.

"Anyone who believes that uncertainities in science are settled by a consensus, whether mythical or real, really knows nothing about science."

Lots of people in this argument saying because there is a consensus amongst most scientists that man made global warming is happening and it's going to wreck the planet in the next 100 years then it must be fact, even though there are still many questions unanswered.

If you have lived long enough and have a reasonable memory then chances are you have seen many alarmist arguments made by scientists and various experts about things that were according to them meant to be fact which turned out not to be correct.

I personally don't know if man is killing the planet through burning coal and driving cars or not, however I do know one thing, until the biggest industrial nations in the world all decide to do something about it then there is no point one small nation of 23 million throwing itself under the bus financially to make a point.
I'm more worried about my grand children not having jobs and a secure future because of stupid government policy aimed at being the global leader in CO2 reduction then I am about the potential of global warming effects if nothing is done and it does turn out to be correct.

[ramblingboy42]

small fine wedges can move huge weights and structures

the more small "wedges" you can drive into any obstacle , the easier it will be to topple.

the more small countries needle the big bastards , the more they're going to feel it and maybe shift their targets and their thinking

[PhilipA]

Yes just like the USA, China , UK , Russia immediately introduced a carbon tax.
And of course Europe also immediately increased their carbon tax from about $1 per tonne to the targetted Australian $40 per tonne.

By the way Dr Karl's CV . Sorry but cannot see any qualification for Climate Science there, only a Bachelor degree in Physics and Mathematics , no mention of Climate anywhere. About as qualified to talk on climate as Tim Flannery of the 5 metre sea rise by when? .


He holds 'a Bachelor of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science) degree in Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) and Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), a Master of Biomedical Engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_engineering), and a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Medicine,_Bachelor_of_Surgery), he
has studied Computer Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Science) as well as reading
for a Master of Science (Qualifying) degree in Astrophysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics). He has worked as a physicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist), a tutor/research
assistant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_assistant), a filmmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmaker), a car
mechanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_mechanic), a road manager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadie), a taxi
driver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab), a scientific officer in a hospital, a t-shirt manufacturer, a
doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician), an academic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic), an author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author), a public speaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_speaker), a television presenter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_presenter)
and reporter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist), a script
writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_writer), a weather man, a radio panelist, science
reporter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_journalism), writer and presenter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_personality), and a script
consultant.[4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki#cite_note-CV-4)] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki#cite_note-CV-4)
Regard sPhilip A

[TerryO]

small fine wedges can move huge weights and structures

the more small "wedges" you can drive into any obstacle , the easier it will be to topple.

the more small countries needle the big bastards , the more they're going to feel it and maybe shift their targets and their thinking


If you like Ramblingboy by all means throw some other small country under the bus by destroying its economy to needle the big economies, but not the one I live in please.

...and you did use the word 'maybe' so your not even confident that the grand plan to shame them into change at the great expense to this countries economy will even work. That doesn't really sound like a good gamble to make.

[ATH]

What bollocks! Shame the big polluters into doing something?
Money is what it's all about and that includes huge amounts of western taxpayers hard earned being transferred straight into so called "emerging countries" leaders bank accounts in Switzerland.
Exactly the same as most aid money for the starving millions in Africa and Asia makes fat bank accounts even fatter.
Bah humbug to the lot of it.
AlanH.

[frantic]

That makes the sudden recent jump to 400 ppm over the last two centuries really quite astonishing. In fact, in the year 2013, the carbon dioxide levels grew at the fastest rate ever measured since reliable global records began.

Now with us, and all of the EU involved in a carbon scheme shouldn't output have slowed?:twisted:
Oops silly me let's just ignore carbon shedding and keep our heads in the sand. Keep on implementing a scam that encourages industry to move into the third world where a paper bag full of cash fixes any emissions issues. ;)

[Basil135]

I am of the opinion that yes, the climate is changing, and yes, maybe humans have something to do with it, but, where I have real issues, is with comments such as:

The current carbon dioxide levels are about 40% higher than they were in the 19th century. They are also at their highest levels for the last 800,000 years. Indeed, over the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels stayed within the range of 170 - 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution.

Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation as to how they measured the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not only in the 19th century, but over the last 800,000 years, accurately as they are evidently measuring it today...


Only a few years ago, "Climate Change" was blamed on the Murray River levels dropping, and there being no water from Lake Alexandrina down to the mouth. I took the kids down there to show them what it looks like during a drought, and explained to them, that the river is a living thing. It has cycles, and goes thru flood & drought, and would be back to what they are used to seeing.

Sure enough, within 12 months, we were skiing on it again.

[slug_burner]

I am of the opinion that yes, the climate is changing, and yes, maybe humans have something to do with it, but, where I have real issues, is with comments such as:

The current carbon dioxide levels are about 40% higher than they were in the 19th century. They are also at their highest levels for the last 800,000 years. Indeed, over the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels stayed within the range of 170 - 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution.

Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation as to how they measured the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not only in the 19th century, but over the last 800,000 years, accurately as they are evidently measuring it today...


Only a few years ago, "Climate Change" was blamed on the Murray River levels dropping, and there being no water from Lake Alexandrina down to the mouth. I took the kids down there to show them what it looks like during a drought, and explained to them, that the river is a living thing. It has cycles, and goes thru flood & drought, and would be back to what they are used to seeing.

Sure enough, within 12 months, we were skiing on it again.

Ice cores have been correlated to known carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, that scientific knowledge has been used to determine what the atmosphere's CO2 content was in the past.

People are right to be sceptical but you can't dismiss things on the basis of not understanding the science.

There are few things that are certain, taxes and death I've heard said are the exception. There are people that have managed to avoid taxes so nothing is certain. I would rather make evidence based decisions however some people will never have enough evidence to decide in the contrary to what they prefer to believe.