I attended a meeting at Roma in Southern Queensland just a couple days ago and a professor Bob Brown provided the meeting with evidenvce that overturns the now entrenched opinion of much of our community that climate change is happening and is caused by man, in particular CO2.
For the past couple days I have not been able to remove from my mind the graph which shows that the earth has for the past 11 years been cooling. The graph was produced at the beginning of the climate change fiasco and showed in particular how the models, all eight of them had predicted a rising temperature and as a result caused pannick in the community, rural as well.
However the fact that the same graph overlaiid with the actual numbers showed a divergence away from the predictions to the South, in fact showing a cooling of the earths temperatute for the last 11 years while coincedently the use of co2 has risen completely turns the issue upside down.
The eveidence is that there is no man made cliamte change. Our leaders must move to reflect the truth!!
Jim you are splitting hairs here. The statement "one of the arguments for nuclear energy is its substantially reduced level of carbon emissions." All that says is what it says - "One of the arguments .......". it does not say the argument is right or wrong. Your objection is nonsense.
As you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the Ivanhoe prospectus and Plimer I'll deal with that first. A prospectus for a public company is put together by the MD/CEO and various independant experts. It is then approved for release by the board of directors, ASX etc. In this case there are 10 directors and essentially approval or otherwise is by majority vote. Are you suggesting that Plimer, who agrees with mining of uranium and nuclear power generation, should have resigned from the board of a company with interests in copper, gold, molybdenum, rhenium and uranium, because of a throw away line about uranium, which is heavily qualified by the introductory: "One of the arguments ...."? Come off it mate. Get real.
Much as I hate to waste time, in that I've already based my assessment on the IPCC reports and references, I decided to wade through the RealClimate links you gave; right through from go to whoa - including all of the 91 questions and answers. Guess what? Severinghaus and his mates do not and obviously cannot answer the question I have posed, even though they were specifically asked that same question a number of times. The question about CO2 and CH4 control on climate variability is THE major scientific issue. If that hypothesis falls over then the whole story does. I attach the leading example of the discussion for all to see:
I read your article “What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?” You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years?
If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling.
The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.
But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.
Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.
Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.
Severinghaus' first paragraph confirms what I have stated. The next 3 paragraphs are just straight down the wicket "woffling". He makes no attempt to explain why all the other supposed weaker agents and feedbacks stop the temperature rise, while the supposed strongly positive amplifying feedbacks of CO2 and CH4 are still rising. Clearly CO2 and CH4 do not control temperature variability. End of story!
Mate, the ball is in your court. I know who Severinghaus is. I've read his papers. Others on that realClimate website have presented him with a straight scientific question that is the crux of the entire issue. If he can't give a straight answer to an issue, on which he is supposed to be a global expert then the problem is his and yours. The only word for his responses to date that I can think of that suits is "woffle". You had better ask him for an answer. And while I am online can I ask you to please come to grips with the fact that I do NOT deny that climate change is happening. Climate is changing constantly. Always has and there is every indication that it always will.
Finally, people are seeing that this man made global warming is nothing but SCIENCE FICTION, and a trojan horse being used to steer the unthinking sheep of Australia and the world, towards a new world order.