It had to happen I guess, Ian Plimer has a big feature letter in this months SC. After being scarred from reading his book recently I couldn't make it past the first paragraph, my mind instantly when back into limbo again. How many issues is that now about carbon polution and energy etc?
BTW, I couldn't help screen grabbing this when I saw it:
Either it's poor ad placement or Leo has had a make-over!
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
**Poor old Leo has really lost the plot. Did you read his comments about Steve Fielding (Family First)? Yikes! Fielding is hardly a towering intellect, what, with all that God stuff. Leo is actually putting this moron forward as an example of an intelligent politician. His belief in the supernatural rules him out of any discussion about logic, reason and science.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Leo. Plimer got it wrong when he claimed the CO2 levels lag temperature rises. He was proven wrong and he steadfastly avoided dealing with the facts.
No. Plimer did not get it wrong. In fact all parties pretty much agree that CO2 levels lag temperature rise; some just try and explain that away, not very successfully.
A number of mechanisms are required to explain climate change and CO2 is the least of these. Continental drift, now more fashionably but less descriptively known as plate tectonics, is involved in locating the continents to permit the necessary deep oceanic currents which transfer heat. The Milankovitch cycles are are an obvious but not sufficient contributor. There are the solar cycles of which the best known is about 11 years. There are other longer cycles. The reversals and changes in the earth's magnetic field are probably a factor. Much of the radiation from space is trapped in the Van Allen belts. This radiation gets through when the Van Allen belts collapse along with the geomagnetic field.
**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag temperature rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are experiencing a CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is the data that Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:
**Without any CO2 in the atmosphere, this planet would be a cold, unihabitable rock. No one disputes this fact. Therefore, CO2 is as important as any other influence on climate. Removing any one influence will spell disaster. Disregarding the influence of CO2 is just foolish.
Continental drift, now more fashionably but less
**All of which, and more, allow this planet to be capable of supporting life as we know it. One of those factors is the CO2 levels we have evolved with. Increase those levels and things will go awry.
**Let's see your cite first, before we jump to any conclusions. The data I supplied may be 9 years old, but the the data it refers to is more than
400,000 years old.
**Then you need to explain (precisely) the influences that have given us the rapid temperature rise we've noted over the last 200 years. Don't foget: Solar variability has already been factored in at around 20% of the total. You need to explain the other 80%. I'm going with CO2 level rises, but I'll interested in hearing your thoughts.