30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lr110qld

(you should enlighten us as to the true amount).

---

not sure i know the correct amount. if fact i was deliberately non descriptive.
i said output. the sun outputs many things. heat, particles, uv rays, x rays, light etc. and not on constant or consistent amounts.


:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lr110qld

1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.

---

correct, possibly solar. possibly something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lr110qld

2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

---

im not trying to prove or disprove either. just keeping an open mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyG

I think the point is there are many variables to Global Warming or Cooling, C02, Water vapor, Sun activity, axis of the earth, volcanic activity, (e.g Krakatoa) so its not cut and dried to say CO2 is the culprit, although it is probably the biggest induced human factor, although i would not discount RFC's (?) and the damage they did.

---

i've never heard this explained so well.
all of the above factors may or may not change co2 levels.
having said that, humans do change co2 levels. humans dont really change water vapor levels, or change the suns activity or cause volcanoes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ausfree

The Earth does not completely surround the Sun

---

not yet

Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hopefully one day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenleyfred

Dr Patrick Moore had a lengthy interview with Steve Austin on the ABC about a week ago or so.
Much of his argument was pooh pooed by Dr Karl yesterday.
Not saying I agree with either, just pointing out that Dr Moore did get ABC airtime.
Kenley

---

Wasn't aware of him being on the radio so thanks for that. I was meaning TV and I heard several mentions on commercial stations that he wasn't on the ABC in that regard.


Both sides seem to do a lot of pooh poohing which just makes it even more difficult for the rest of us to gauge where the reality is. With all due respect, Dr Karl is on the ABC teat and the ABC is obviously pushing one side of the debate. If the ABC had had Dr Moore on the show to debate it with Dr Karl that might have been more informative.


Fox had Moore debating a bloke from the Climate Council and it was like a heavy weight fighting an amateur. If that was the best the Climate Council could supply either they are understaffed or their argument is lightweight.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

not yet

Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hopefully one day

---

Being an interested amateur, I have read up on Dysons Spheres before.....interesting concept!!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

i've never heard this explained so well.
all of the above factors may or may not change co2 levels.
having said that, humans do change co2 levels. humans dont really change water vapor levels, or change the suns activity or cause volcanoes.

---

What I meant was global warming could be due to human factors, Co2, CFC, a real baddie in my book, look at the ozone layer, water vapor from cooling towers, which has been put forward, plus nature's own changes, volcanoes, solar activity, the tilt of the earth, a bit worry are the methane ponds in the arctic that are letting go, due to humans or nature. Personally I think CO2 is hyped up as there is a lot of money to be made. Why does Gore push various forms of wealth transfer, ie buy sell carbon credits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyG

I don't see that, we would receive a constant percentage of the suns output as the size of our receiving surface does not change, so if the sun cranked up by 10%, it would out put 10% more in all directions and we (the Earth) would get 10% more on our unchanged surface.

I am sure Eevo could prove it mathematically, but not this wood duck.

---

More specifically, it needs to be said that "we" are assuming that all of the (energy - 1%) STILL reaches the earth, as the energy is a factor in how far it travels, it would be safer to say - if the amount of energy "reaching" the earth was reduced 1%, then ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ausfree

Being an interested amateur, I have read up on Dysons Spheres before.....interesting concept!!:)

---

Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt.

---

No, not much of a novel reader, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt.

---

Harsh,
Larry Niven, thanks for the reminder, just downloaded to the Kindle to join the other unread collection