Just now, Wrecker45 said:

I didn't say it was naturally occurring although I presume it would be. You made a statement saying your brother has seen man made climate change first hand and I just asked how he knows it wasn't naturally occurring.

Perhaps ask him and come back and answer the question.

I answered your question; you intimated that it is naturally occurring with the wording of your question. End of discussion.

18 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I answered your question; you intimated that it is naturally occurring with the wording of your question. End of discussion.

Ok. So your answer is because your brother understands the science. Thanks for contributing. Of course your brother has no idea. Nobody can say for sure that man made climate change, i.e human CO2 emissions have caused anything. The evidence is simply no there. If your brother is saying that he is ill-informed.

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

Ok. So your answer is because your brother understands the science. Thanks for contributing. Of course your brother has no idea. Nobody can say for sure that man made climate change, i.e human CO2 emissions have caused anything. The evidence is simply no there. If your brother is saying that he is ill-informed.

I’m sure he’s less informed than you, having had so little contact with real world scenarios and not enough contact with faux scientists... you MUST be correct, after all, you ARE a conservative are you not?

27 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I’m sure he’s less informed than you, having had so little contact with real world scenarios and not enough contact with faux scientists... you MUST be correct, after all, you ARE a conservative are you not?

Yes I am a conservative which gives me a massive advantage in thinking but that is not the reason I am right.

 

I felt cold watching this !

And it's just reporting FACTS about dud predictions by climate science "experts"..

 

12 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I felt cold watching this !

And it's just reporting FACTS about dud predictions by climate science "experts"..

 

I wonder if @hardtack 's brother was a scientist in the 70's

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Yes I am a conservative which gives me a massive advantage in thinking but that is not the reason I am right.

 

?????????

37 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I wonder if @hardtack 's brother was a scientist in the 70's

Well, he wasn’t, but whatever... there’s little doubt that he’s light years ahead of you in the area of climate change.

Dodging questions and replying with emoji's just furthers my argument. I am beginning to think deep down you know man made climate change is a farce.

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

Well, he wasn’t, but whatever... there’s little doubt that he’s light years ahead of you in the area of climate change.

This is getting boring. My sister is probably better than you at barracking for Melbourne but we will never really know. I wish the best for your brother and hope going forward you have the ability to contribute with your own arguments. 

Just now, Wrecker45 said:

This is getting boring. My sister is probably better than you at barracking for Melbourne but we will never really know. I wish the best for your brother and hope going forward you have the ability to contribute with your own arguments. 

Funny coming from someone who posts off the coattails of ProDee.

6 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Funny coming from someone who posts off the coattails of ProDee.

That's funny because I started this topic. Maybe look through the 17 pages of this thread and point out 1 good post you have made. I can't count any for you.

I made posts, but I’m not so concerned with how you regard them... I post things I find interesting and feel no need to defend them.

If you want a dick measuring contest, I suggest you Look elsewhere.

54 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Funny coming from someone who posts off the coattails of ProDee.

I was away for months and congratulated wrecker for "fighting the good fight".

Serious questions though...

Do you think humans 3% contribution to 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is more likely to drive the planet's temperatures than Solar activity, ocean circulations, and cloud forcing ?  Or the 100 other things that contribute ?

Especially when we know 4 things...

1. CO2 was 10 times greater in the past with cooler temperatures.

2. It's been proven that CO2 lagged temperature from ice cores (even alarmists don't deny this).

3. NASA manipulates data, because they know CO2 didn't drive temperature during the cooling period of 1940 - 1978.

4. Datasets show a correlation between temperature and solar activity.  Do you want me to post the graphs again ?

Even better, ask your brother and get back to me.

Edited November 16, 20177 yr by ProDee

Pro, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Black Saturday. (maybe you've got me on 'Ignore' - fair enough - I'd ignore myself if it was possible)

Oh and I'm also still waiting for Jackaub (or whatever his name was - sorry) to tell us what he means by an "earth sciences background".  I've got an earth sciences background myself - the earth sciences department of Melbourne Uni was directly behind the cafe where I used to sit and study for my degree in classics. 

14 hours ago, Jara said:

Pro, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Black Saturday. (maybe you've got me on 'Ignore' - fair enough - I'd ignore myself if it was possible)

Jara CO2 historically has been much higher as measured in ppm and also much lower. There is no real world evidence co2 drives climate.

You are an expert on Black Saturday, have studied it and written a book on it. I'm sure what you have done is of an excellent standard but it is a long bow to draw that man made CO2 contributions were the primary factor in causing the conditions the alllowed black Saturday to be so devistating.

Predicting doom for the Great Barrier Reef has almost become a sport for radical alarmists and their lemmings, but this comprehensive study from 1995-2009 shows some very good news.

Somehow i think good news for the reef is bad news for those who predict its demise.  It's almost though they want it to suffer.

But never fear, the alarmists overstate everything and the GBR will be fine.

Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009)

Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009)

Kate Osborne,* Andrew M. Dolman,¤a Scott C. Burgess,¤b and Kerryn A. Johns

Abstract

Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

You can read more here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

Edited November 17, 20177 yr by ProDee

While we're feeling great about outcomes on the GBR:

Remote coral reefs can be tougher than they look: Western Australia’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching

Date:

April 5, 2013

Source:

ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies

Summary:

Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbors, a long-term study by marine biologists has shown. Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study.

 

Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today.

The study challenges conventional wisdom that suggested isolated reefs were more vulnerable to disturbance, because they were thought to depend on recolonisation from other reefs. Instead, the scientists found that the isolation of reefs allowed surviving corals to rapidly grow and propagate in the absence of human interference.

 

You can read more here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405094523.htm

You won't believe it, but I've got more news on corals.  There's much science doesn't know about corals, but viral infection is suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation.  It may not be we nasty humans or "climate change" doing the damage.

"Remember ‘Global Warming is killing the frogs?’ – turned out to be fungus spread by biologists.
‘Global Warming is killing the bees!’ – parasites
‘Global Warming is killing the bats!’ – fungus
Now, ‘Global Warming is killing the coral!’ – virus ?"

Unique nucleocytoplasmic dsDNA and +ssRNA viruses are associated with the dinoflagellate endosymbionts of corals

• Adrienne M S Correa
• , Rory M Welsh
•  & Rebecca L Vega Thurber

Abstract

The residence of dinoflagellate algae (genus: Symbiodinium) within scleractinian corals is critical to the construction and persistence of tropical reefs. In recent decades, however, acute and chronic environmental stressors have frequently destabilized this symbiosis, ultimately leading to coral mortality and reef decline. Viral infection has been suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation; knowledge of the diversity and hosts of coral-associated viruses is critical to evaluating this hypothesis. Here, we present the first genomic evidence of viruses associated with Symbiodinium, based on the presence of transcribed +ss (single-stranded) RNA and ds (double-stranded) DNA virus-like genes in complementary DNA viromes of the coral Montastraea cavernosa and expressed sequence tag (EST) libraries generated from Symbiodinium cultures. The M. cavernosa viromes contained divergent viral sequences similar to the major capsid protein of the dinoflagellate-infecting +ssRNA Heterocapsa circularisquama virus, suggesting a highly novel dinornavirus could infect Symbiodinium. Further, similarities to dsDNA viruses dominated (∼69%) eukaryotic viral similarities in the M. cavernosa viromes. Transcripts highly similar to eukaryotic algae-infecting phycodnaviruses were identified in the viromes, and homologs to these sequences were found in two independently generated Symbiodinium EST libraries. Phylogenetic reconstructions substantiate that these transcripts are undescribed and distinct members of the nucleocytoplasmic large DNA virus (NCLDVs) group. Based on a preponderance of evidence, we infer that the novel NCLDVs and RNA virus described here are associated with the algal endosymbionts of corals. If such viruses disrupt Symbiodinium, they are likely to impact the flexibility and/or stability of coral–algal symbioses, and thus long-term reef health and resilience.

You can read more here https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201275

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Jara CO2 historically has been much higher as measured in ppm and also much lower. There is no real world evidence co2 drives climate.

You are an expert on Black Saturday, have studied it and written a book on it. I'm sure what you have done is of an excellent standard but it is a long bow to draw that man made CO2 contributions were the primary factor in causing the conditions the alllowed black Saturday to be so devistating.

Thanks Wrecker - the thing is, as I said to you before (I was only stirring up Pro in asking him to respond) - I spent a fair bit of time with scientists after Black Saturday, and their general opinion was the human intervention was warming up the planet. It could all be a coincidence, of course - I'm not stupid enough to sound as certain as Pro is - but it's a hell of a coincidence. The worst drought ever produces the hottest temperature ever which produces the worst fire ever.   

3 hours ago, Jara said:

Thanks Wrecker - the thing is, as I said to you before (I was only stirring up Pro in asking him to respond) - I spent a fair bit of time with scientists after Black Saturday, and their general opinion was the human intervention was warming up the planet. It could all be a coincidence, of course - I'm not stupid enough to sound as certain as Pro is - but it's a hell of a coincidence. The worst drought ever produces the hottest temperature ever which produces the worst fire ever.   

The worst drought ever and hottest temperature ever?

I'm guessing worst and hottest since the beginning of temperature records i.e 1910 and I'm being generous.

Just suppose it was the hottest temperature and worst drought ever can you really say it was a result of man made climate change when CO2 has been much higher ppm previously?

More bad news for the alarmists.

Back radiation versus CO₂ as the cause of climate change

H Douglas Lightfoot, Orval A Mamer

First Published July 28, 2017

Abstract

Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO₂ molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO₂ and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO₂ has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) indicate increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5℃ temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011.

You can read it here http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X17722790

References

1.	Lightfoot HD. A strategy for adequate future energy supply and carbon emission control. In: Climate change technology conference: engineering challenges and solutions in the 21st century, Engineering Institute of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, p.3, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp (9–12 May 2006, accessed 20 July 2017). Google Scholar
2.	Iodice P, Senatore A. Atmospheric pollution from point and diffuse sources in a National Interest Priority Site located in Italy. Energy Environ 2016, pp. 27: 586–596. Google Scholar
3.	Iodice P, Senatore A. Industrial and urban sources in Campania, Italy: the air pollution emission inventory. Energy Environ 2015, pp. 26: 1305–1317. Google Scholar
4.	Iodice P and Senatore A. Influence of ethanol-gasoline blended fuels on cold start emissions of a four-stroke motorcycle. Methodology and results. SAE technical papers 6. Paper no. 2013-24-0117, 2013. Google Scholar
5.	IPCC. Chapter 6 radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 881pp. Google Scholar
6.	IPCC. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press 2007, Summary for Policy Makers, SPM.2, p.4. Google Scholar
7.	IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Figure 2.11, 2013, p.181. Google Scholar
8.	Wild M, et al. Evaluation of downward longwave radiation in general circulation models. J Climate Am Meteorol Soc 2001; 14: 3227–3239 (Table 4, p.3233). Google Scholar
9.	Spencer RW. Climate confusion, encounter books. 1st ed. Chapter 3. New York, USA: Encounter Books, 2008. Google Scholar
10.	Rosenberg M. Temperate, torrid and frigid zones, about education, http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/torridfrigid.htm (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar
11.	MegaWatSoft Psychrometric Calculator, HumidAir Excel Add-In v3.1. This program is available for purchase or rental, www.megawatsoft.com (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar
12.	United Nations Statistics Division, Earth Policy Institute, Eco-Economy Indicators, Global Temperatures, http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51 (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar
13.	Willett KM, Williams CNJr., Dunn RJH, et al. HadISDH: an updateable land surface specific humidity product for climate monitoring. Climate Past 2013; 9: 657–677. Google Scholar Crossref
14.	Willett KM, Jones PD, Gillett NP, et al. Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HADCRUT dataset. J Climate 2008; 21: 5364–5383. Google Scholar Crossref
15.	Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature//(accessed 19 July 2017). Google Scholar

 

Apologies if this has already been posted, I have re read the last 5 pages and didn't see anything. There was a very interesting article on the NASA website recently.

"A new NASA study adds evidence that a geothermal heat source called a mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. Although the heat source isn’t a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today."

"The stability of an ice sheet is closely related to how much water lubricates it from below, allowing glaciers to slide more easily. Understanding the sources and future of the meltwater under West Antarctica is important for estimating the rate at which ice may be lost to the ocean in the future."

"Mantle plumes are thought to be narrow streams of hot rock rising through Earth's mantle and spreading out like a mushroom cap under the crust. The buoyancy of the material, some of it molten, causes the crust to bulge upward. The theory of mantle plumes was proposed in the 1970s to explain geothermal activity that occurs far from the boundary of a tectonic plate, such as Hawaii and Yellowstone."

"The Marie Byrd Land mantle plume formed 50 to 110 million years ago, long before the West Antarctic ice sheet came into existence. At the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago, the ice sheet went through a period of rapid, sustained ice loss when changes in global weather patterns and rising sea levels pushed warm water closer to the ice sheet -- just as is happening today. Seroussi and Ivins suggest the mantle plume could facilitate this kind of rapid loss."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground

Edited November 17, 20177 yr by Rafiki

NASA's own datasets.  Wonder why the 2016 version is different ?