The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.
That underlined part of the wiki quote was one of my success stories
Prior to my edit it read that the greenhouse effect was 'proven by experimental observations by John Tyndall' which was baloney and surprisingly my edit of 'reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall' is still there.
Tyndall of course never talked about climate and C02 and only massively emphasised the huge warming importance of water, where without water most of the world would be frozen solid by morning.
Global warming could just as easily be caused by irrigation than any of the other human created doom possibilities.
For example Tyndall showed some low temperatures in June found in dry weather in Australia at about 1700 feet by surveyor general for NSW Mitchell in Queensland near the town of Mitchel. Mitchel found what appeared to be the then largest diurnal temperature change anywhere on Earth known to Tyndall in 1858. On June 2nd in about 1840 it was -11C at sunrise and 19C at 4pm (11F to 67F)
Wiki would not allow me to include Tyndalls comments on water. And shortly thereafter I was banned.
Wiki is a fools encyclopedia that is captured by the climate terrorists.
Yes Dickwad, it's 99% been caused by human activity.
Why the abuse? I don't see any evidence to back up your position that CO2 can no longer be absorbed, Milankovitch Cycles have ended, solar output no longer varies, volcanoes no longer erupt, and ocean currents no longer change. I don't see why all these things would vanish just because humans arrived. I believe all these things still play a part in climate change, and the impact of humans is impossible to quantify given so many the other variables.
Furthermore, the latest data shows there has been no change in global temperatures for almost two decades, which doesn't seem to fit with the overall 'global warming' meme.
Given there is no consensus in the scientific community about the impact of humans on climate change, perhaps those who are convinced it is 99% caused by humans should have a rethink...
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.
A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”
Where did I say CO2 cannot be absorbed? I didn't say that did I?
You said all the things that impacted climate change in the past basically no longer apply, because 99% of climate change is now the result of human activity.
Another factor is an increase in global dimming since 2000 with the rise of 2nd world industrialism and in particular China.
The emission of sulfur dioxide in the WW2 and post war periods by western industrial created a level of stratospheric sulphates causing a post war cooling tend. With the clean acts of the 1970's western nation emissions of SO2 went into a decline. But since 2000 with Chinese industrial activity sulfur dioxide emissions have been on the rise again.
China now emits as much SO2 as the US did before it engaged the clean air act.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
FALLING concern about global warming has prompted a drop in the proportion of companies assessing their vulnerability to climate change, while government policies to manage the risks remain fragmented and unco-ordinated, a study released by the Climate Institute has found.
The report, Coming Ready or Not: Managing climate risks to Australia’s infrastructure, found a widespread belief that because taking steps to limit the risks to long-lived assets such as the energy industry and railways is ''expensive, extensive, time-consuming and difficult'', ''no action is often seen as the easiest path''.
Such inaction, though, may carry costs of its own. A separate report out last week by Baker & McKenzie and the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, argued that trustees in charge of Australia's $1.4 trillion in superannuation who failed to consider climate change risk may be in breach of their fiduciary duties.
''A rapidly changing climate drives not just warmer but wilder weather,'' the Climate Institute report said. ''For our infrastructure - economic, social and natural - this means that the past is no longer a good guide to the future.''
Munich Re, the world's biggest re-insurer, told BusinessDay that Australia's weather-related losses rose more than fourfold in the 1980-2011 period, a pace only exceeded among the continents by North America.
Australia makes up less than 2 per cent of the global reinsurance market but over the past five years the country has accounted for more than 6 per cent of global losses, the risk report said.
Two surveys by the CSIRO of more than 400 public and private sector organisations found the proportion taking into account risks had fallen from almost 60 per cent in 2008 to less than 47 per cent two years later. Just over a third had taken steps, or planned to, in response to the assessments, the report found.
Climate Alarmists are free to believe in an imaginary 'global warming ' fairy. The problem is when their invented religion infects policy makers, it increases rates, energy, insurances and goods and services in general. False religions can have real world impacts. It is time call out that the emperor has no clothes and get back to living in the real world.
Climate Alarmists are free to believe in an imaginary 'global warming ' fairy. The problem is when their invented religion infects policy makers, it increases rates, energy, insurances and goods and services in general. False religions can have real world impacts. It is time call out that the emperor has no clothes and get back to living in the real world.
The first time I read about global warming was when I was 8 years old back in 1969.
I'm afraid it is a fact, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere then the globe will warm. It is simple like that. Arrhenius predictions from over a century ago are still on the mark. He was pooh poohed, but by the 1960's it was realized he was right.
Not that carbon taxes will do any good, they'll be a sham like the monetary system.
The first time I read about global warming was when I was 8 years old back in 1969.
I'm afraid it is a fact, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere then the globe will warm. It is simple like that. Arrhenius predictions from over a century ago are still on the mark. He was pooh poohed, but by the 1960's it was realized he was right.
Not that carbon taxes will do any good, they'll be a sham like the monetary system.
Most of the effect of C02 is in the bands water absorbs in.
Diagrams showing the impact of C02 are always used with very low water content.
What we see is hype and more hype.
Will more C02 result in a warmer earth? Yes. By how much? Nobody knows.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
