Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:


Are you talking to yourself?

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 12:15am:



Alarmists also told us there would be no ice in the arctic by 2013...LOL....????

But there is nothing out of the ordinary about the arctic and Greenland melting.

During the medieval warm period the glaciers on Greenland were all but gone.

That's why it was named green land.

In the 1940's it was also reported that Greenland and the arctic where melting at alarming rates.

Yet here we are today and we have ice on both.

Mr Ajax

Are suggesting that CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere can be increased to any level and not have any effects on the earths thermal retention rates, ice cover, climate etc?

Have you decided what proportion of the fossil fuel reserves should be burnt as quickly as possible, how much forest cover is allowed for the planet, what CO2 level is permitted?

Have you designed the future for ALL of the earths inhabitants as well as all of the other species of life?

Are you the ultimate judge of risk, for all of humanity?

All because you don't want to pay any taxes but wish to benefit from what taxes deliver

...like the internet which you are using right now, as well as the computer chip which is running your PC - all innovations of the tax payer funding model.

If it concerns you so much why not live alone on a desolate island somewhere?

I know that there are plenty of Australians who prefer to shift their citizenry and therefor their tax liability to various small island nations,

Why would they do that Mr Ajax?

Ajax, Wieslaw Maslowski works for the US Navy Polar Ice Prediction System. He might have written a paper on polar ice, but it was one of many. Just because one researcher gets it wrong doesn't imply that there was any consensus.

Perhaps if the level of Chinese aerosol pollution was less, he could have easily been right.

muso wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 9:40am:


...an easy exercise or calculation can be done to account for all aerosol emissions that act as dimming agents in the earths atmosphere

In fact the sluggish warming or static temperatures measured during the 1945 to 1965 period can be attributed to the elevated presence of aerosols from global industries that had poor or NO emission treatment or filtration systems installed. During this period the atmospheric CO2 level had not reached 320 ppmv. We are looking at about 400 ppmv today

We also know that the large volcanic eruption in the late 1990s also caused a suppression of thermal retention rates.

In any case, if CO2 levels continue to rise the thermal retention rates will trend upwards triggering various known and unknown tipping points. (in fact even if the CO2 level stabilised TODAY, there is a latency in the system that will still cause warming)

Hard times ahead - especially for AUstralia which will be hit very severely depending on where people and species reside on this vast continent