"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David
You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim


Sometimes the obvious escapes people. (Government policies have been
applauded even on Wikipedia as part of their job to sway public opinion.
Welcome to the world of internet undercover work)
I actually meant to ask David Hare-Scott this question.
Sorry.
Me, I'm not. Just a concerned member of the genera public who refuses to
be hood winked when its obvious that for the most part its about revenue!
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do any
good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm very
cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere
was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the temperature increased
by a similar amount? the average is about 290Kelvin why is it not
330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????

SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David
You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim


Sometimes the obvious escapes people. (Government policies have been
applauded even on Wikipedia as part of their job to sway public opinion.
Welcome to the world of internet undercover work)
I actually meant to ask David Hare-Scott this question.
Sorry.
Me, I'm not. Just a concerned member of the genera public who refuses to
be hood winked when its obvious that for the most part its about revenue!
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do any
good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm very
cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere
was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the temperature increased
by a similar amount? the average is about 290Kelvin why is it not
330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????


Youre not. Others are.
The relation ship between increase in CO2 and Degrees kelvin would
hardly have a similar relationship though.
Its the saem as saying, if I have one window, which increases the
temperature by say 20 degrees, two windows will increase the temperature
to 40 degrees. It bears no relationship.
But there could be an increase of some sort. How much depends on the
characteristics of the gases or water vapour involved.
As it is , CO2 production which is man made is minor compared to natural
CO2. As is the part it plays as the "window" where CO2 affects climate
change.
This is a very small "window" after which temperature does not increase
if CO2 is increased. This is where the political lie comes into affect.
More CO2 will cause greenhouse affect?
What about other gases?

This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do any
good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm very
cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere
was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the temperature increased
by a similar amount? the average is about 290Kelvin why is it not
330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????


We have a strong La Nina effect at the moment.

La Niña translates from Spanish as "the girl-child". The term "La Niña" has recently become the conventional meteorological label for the opposite of the better known El Niño.

The term La Niña refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean.



In Australia (particularly eastern Australia), La Niña events are associated with increased probability of wetter conditions.



Changes to the atmosphere and ocean circulation during La Niña events include:

a.. Cooler than normal ocean temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
b.. Increased convection or cloudiness over tropical Australia, Papua New-Guinea, and Indonesia.
c.. Stronger than normal (easterly) trade winds across the Pacific Ocean (but not necessarily in the Australian region).
d.. High (positive) values of the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index).

A La Niña event is sometimes called an anti-ENSO (anti-El Niño-Southern Oscillation) event.

Jonno wrote:
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do
any good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But
I'm very cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the
atmosphere was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the
temperature increased by a similar amount? the average is about
290Kelvin why is it not 330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????


This is a strawman argument. As far as I know no climate scientist says
that the average global temperature in degrees Kelvin should be proportional
to the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere starting from 30 years ago. The real
relationship is quite complex, don't expect it to say that a x% increase in
Co2 means a x% increase in temperature. Just because this relationship that
SG1 has presented fails doesn't mean anything about the reliability of
current climate models..


We have a strong La Nina effect at the moment.


Why do you say that? This mob:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

say we are still in ENSO.

The debate will be enriched if we all take time to try to check facts before
posting.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do
any good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But
I'm very cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the
atmosphere was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the
temperature increased by a similar amount? the average is about
290Kelvin why is it not 330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????


This is a strawman argument. As far as I know no climate scientist says
that the average global temperature in degrees Kelvin should be
proportional to the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere starting from 30 years
ago. The real relationship is quite complex, don't expect it to say that
a x% increase in Co2 means a x% increase in temperature. Just because
this relationship that SG1 has presented fails doesn't mean anything about
the reliability of current climate models..


We have a strong La Nina effect at the moment.


Why do you say that? This mob:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

say we are still in ENSO.

The debate will be enriched if we all take time to try to check facts
before posting.

David

Yes youre right. Thanks you for correcting me.
I made a mistake in my enthusiasm for some good news, I didnt read the darn
date....

But there is more rain forecast as a conseqence.

How this fares for the next few months, I would like to know.