Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

**RANDLOVER** · 28th December 2019, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by superquag

"...There are currently 7 (last I checked) primary Climate modelling systems.
From these multiple scenarios are run in an attempt to determine the outcomes of different changes.

There has not been more than 2 scenarios that have matched up significantly since their inception.

Recently, solar data has been added to one or more of these models and significantly altered the outcomes of scenarios.

They are still to attempt to factor in the Water Vapour in the atmosphere as this is the most complex - and the biggest contributor to atmospheric heating/cooling...."

Two questions underpin - IMHO - the whole ediface of 'Climate Change and Who's to Blame'.
1. That our current climate change is a novel, modern-civilisation thing, entirely the fault of humankind and therefore equally reverse-able,
and,
2. Increasing Carbon dioxide is the mechanism, therefore only Evil will come from such, and only good comes from reducing it.

Problem is, apart from Human Nature, there's the evidence that climate variations in both directions have been well proven, and all before Today.

Don't forget that 'scientists' can make mistakes and be misquoted by mischievous media...as happened back in the 1970's.. with an impending ice-age... Polar Bears walking Loch Lomond and wolves lurking in London's Laneways. Some of the predictions were pretty lurid ! Sadly, never happened.
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Then there are scientists with "Political-standard" concepts of Truth, (only 10,999 to go)
Like the "J- Curve",

or the 'Hockey-Stick' Inventor Of Fraudulent Temperature ‘Hockey Stick’ Is Humiliated In Canadian Court

Wonder if Greta would appreciate a nice bunch of hot-house & efficiently grown Dutch Tulips? - what would her handlers say if they were wrapped in this article...
CO2 Enrichment in Greenhouses | DutchGreenhouses(R)

Wow there's a blast from the past, those articles are from Feb 2013, Jul 2017, and 2018. Which search engine are you using, AOL? All have made no difference, so can be discounted.

**vnx205** · 28th December 2019, 04:04 PM

The argument that we should ignore scientists' warnings because they told us in the 70's that we were all going to freeze to death is based on misinformation.
The majority of papers published suggested warming, not cooling.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

1970s_papers.gif
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

**superquag** · 28th December 2019, 04:27 PM

At least you looked !
Did you notice this line?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." – George Santayana

Yes, and closer in time to the (origin) of the information, so less likely to be ignored or buried by an increasingly lazy and/or biased press.

Besides, the Hockey Stick was foundational to generate fear and establish the Dogma... of Man-made climate change. To be blunt, "Peer Review" should have flushed him out long ago.
Yes, 'C-C IS Man-Made' shares more with religious fundementalism than the gathering, ordering and discernment of knowledge, a.k.a Science.

Based on your hesitancy to accept 2013, or even 2017 this article would be equally inaccurate and misleading....
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment | Managing CO2 in Your Grow Space

Check the CO2 concentrations discussed... and notice how plants respond !

**vnx205** · 28th December 2019, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by superquag

Check the CO2 concentrations discussed... and notice how plants respond !

A couple more articles on the same subject. I'll leave it to you to find the relevant conclusions.

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production | New Scientist

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? - Scientific American

**superquag** · 28th December 2019, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by vnx205

The argument that we should ignore scientists' warnings because they told us in the 70's that we were all going to freeze to death is based on misinformation.
The majority of papers published suggested warming, not cooling.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

1970s_papers.gif
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

Well, near equal numbers of opposite conclusions. What gets noticed ? - Back then, as now, strident and often repeating tweets carry the day.

**Fatso** · 28th December 2019, 04:50 PM

heatwave.gif post ofice.gif Bit of history .

**superquag** · 28th December 2019, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Fatso

heatwave.gif post ofice.gif Bit of history .

My (previously Aussie-owned) Optometrist sent me a reminder for an annual eye-test and hopefully sale of spectacles... maybe they know something I don't, as that graph appears to be running more ..."downhill" than Uphill.

**AK83** · 29th December 2019, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Johndoe

I always thought we should use roads as a means of collecting solar.

....

Solar freaking roadways!
Look up Youtubers: Thunderfoot and EEVBlog both of whom explain the reality of the concept 'most concisely'.

ps. at the current rate of technological advancement, soar roads will more than likely never happen in anyones lifetime.

**AK83** · 29th December 2019, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by vnx205

A couple more articles on the same subject. I'll leave it to you to find the relevant conclusions.....

I'll see your myths and raise you an alternate myth ...
The myth that tree canopy/forest coverage is somehow diminishing

While some areas do lose trees(ie. rainforest) and may recover slowly, you rarely hear of the opposite happening in sparsely wooded areas turning back into forests again.

So the news outlets again are to blame, or the hysteria seeking scammers may be to blame for that.
But it's little known that tree coverage, in global terms, has increased over the climate change period.

forest coverage study

Study was published in Nature, so it's not some righwing, redneck propaganda.
How many of us can honestly say that we thought that forest coverage has increased over the past 35 years, considering all the news we've read on what's happening to forests.

Makes for a more balanced information that just the doom and gloom scenario we're bombarded with that the Amazon is shrinking, tropical forests are being lost .. etc, etc.
I can't ever recall having read or watched any news item anywhere that global tree coverage on the whole has increased.

The only info that I've come across re tree coverage has been about the loss of this forest, and that area(eg. due to fires), or some protected trees having been illegally harvested or whatever.

So again, if climate change is doing anything, with the current info we have on it, it's 'balancing out' what we currently know of the world.
Tropical forest growth rates slowing, but reforestation is happening in other areas, and the net effect is that those forest coverage will be more balanced in the future than what we've previously known of it.

**rick130** · 29th December 2019, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by AK83

I'll see your myths and raise you an alternate myth ...
The myth that tree canopy/forest coverage is somehow diminishing

While some areas do lose trees(ie. rainforest) and may recover slowly, you rarely hear of the opposite happening in sparsely wooded areas turning back into forests again.

So the news outlets again are to blame, or the hysteria seeking scammers may be to blame for that.
But it's little known that tree coverage, in global terms, has increased over the climate change period.

forest coverage study

Study was published in Nature, so it's not some righwing, redneck propaganda.
How many of us can honestly say that we thought that forest coverage has increased over the past 35 years, considering all the news we've read on what's happening to forests.

Makes for a more balanced information that just the doom and gloom scenario we're bombarded with that the Amazon is shrinking, tropical forests are being lost .. etc, etc.
I can't ever recall having read or watched any news item anywhere that global tree coverage on the whole has increased.

The only info that I've come across re tree coverage has been about the loss of this forest, and that area(eg. due to fires), or some protected trees having been illegally harvested or whatever.

So again, if climate change is doing anything, with the current info we have on it, it's 'balancing out' what we currently know of the world.
Tropical forest growth rates slowing, but reforestation is happening in other areas, and the net effect is that those forest coverage will be more balanced in the future than what we've previously known of it.

I saw it reported several months ago, and it's not forest cover increasing, it's tree cover, it's a lot more nuanced and often something very different.
E.g. Forests felled (diverse habitat) for industrial ag, e.g. Palm oil, plantation timber (mono culture) etc

And certain areas, e.g. Qld, tree cover is reducing at a rapid rate thanks to land clearing.
All detailed in that report.
I wish I could copy and paste on the bloody phone....

Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Thread Tools

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions