Climate Change
My deceased uncle worked for the UN traveling all around the pacific and believed water levels rising were a hoax as the arctic is above water not land and when it melts it will be like ice melting in an iced coffee, the level doesn't rise. However Antarctica is above land, i regret not mentioning that to him as he was very intelligent and a lovely man.If snow and ice melt above land the water will rise obviously..anyway i lost a bit of respect for the UN after he told me that.
Michael West has his own agenda which I discussed in a post on" Australia your standing in it" this
morning . I don't think it is that smart to create articles that support the view he is trying to discredit .
To be fair on him way too many people look at his headline and agree with him which I assume is his motive . It only those who think about what he is saying that get the real story .
For all you greenies who hate beautiful CO2 ( and methane ) here is an article that shows you how to achieve your goal to have zero CO2 growth . As not one of your faithful I do not see the need .
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/uranium-powering-cleanest-source-energy
Just read this .
"The economy is like a rainforest that is so complicated that it is not simply about planting a bunch of trees. So many species have evolved and they are all interconnected."
The article was about those who thought the knew how to change the economy like Marx . Same goes for the climate and those wo think they can change it .
Hey hutchy, sort of wondering what you’re doing here, multiple comments over multiple topics for days now, apparently new to social media, so who are you and who’re working for?
You are on the ball Smiley Guy . !!!!!
Am I a professional employed by Murdoch to you to come onto Swellnet and mess with all your minds ? The good news and I can tell Rupert his plan is having the desired effect .I will say it was much easier than I thought it would be . He won't be impressed though when I tell him a Sherlock Holms type has uncovered his dastardly plan .
You are on the ball Smiley - you can't be fooled .
Would you please write a more detailed post which I will put on a new resume . I am sure there would be more good money doing this . You can't get some young wippersnapper from a foreign country to do it can you Sherlock . It needs a professionally trained individual .
Ah hah! Now it all makes sense.
I was thinking more a young liberal twat hutchy, don’t ahead of yourself there
I was thinking the same thing Guy Smiley. It's tough times for Young Liberals, not being able to go out on the town and getting shit faced with your chums.
YLs need to make their own fun and I thought Hutchy 19 was slumming it on Swellnet rather than drinking craft beer and snorting coke in some fancy nightclub.
Nah - even if deprived of a chucker or two with the coves in the morning and lines behind the VIP rope ‘le soir’ with the chums - there’s no way your average young Lib could ever be faffed to produce the amount of content Hutchy does.
Murdoch’s Minions on the other hand are proper true believers. Diligent and committed to the cause. Rupert demands nothing less. Hutchy’s a Murdoch man.
I reckon he's the work experience kid at the IPA.
You all are wrong !
Smiley -" apparently new to social media, so who are you and who’re working for? " "I was thinking more a young liberal twat hutchy, "
Smiley to help you stop your guesses ( I did enjoy them and found them hysterical ) . I an not young and I work for myself . Paid for the business I write . Have for 25 years .
Just unfortunately too opinionated , stupid (think that I can help others see things as I see them ), social media inexperienced , too strong combative nature , unafraid of what others think and have many other faults .
Other than Tabaco it is all natural .
I thought this site was going to be just about surfing and not all the other super important issues I have a strong passion for .
Hoping to settle down soon ( you want me to piss off but only Stu can do that ). This old dog's bark is worse than my bite and can learnt new tricks .
It may take a bit of time . I have always stood up for the underdog , and on this site , people with many of my views are ridiculed and told to get f..cked way too quickly imo . As I have said , that is why there are no women on the threads .
Sorry I have to say this .
Vic Local - if you were allowed to use your gun to kill all the people you have said in your posts who should die you would have Winki to yourself .
Gee it would be really good if there were a way to recoup some of the costs of climate change that will be realised in the coming decades from those who willfully deny it and distort the science for their own petty ideological desires.
Love to see their estates held liable. The evidence is clear, the science is settled at this point the only deniers left are the deeply ideological.
Millhouse ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
@Hutchy,
I removed this post as it's the exact same post that appears elsewhere. Feel free to direct people towards that post but repeating something across multiple threads - as has happened a bit recently - is tantamount to spamming.
This isn't solely directed at you but anyone doing the same.
No worries Stunet !
For those that that think the 98% of scientists believe in man made global warming comment has settled the science below is what I think .
If there are 2% who think otherwise it is my view that it is not settled . As Einstein said " I don't care if everyone believes I am wrong as it only takes 1 to prove I am wrong " .
When this statement came out I thought it WAS a very powerful argument so I checked it out to see if it was true .
Found out they had culled the responses of the so called scientists for their study . The removed many responses for whatever reasons eg not filled out the form correctly . Then I saw that many of the chosen respondents were not even climate scientists and were not even scientists ( eg had worked in a lab etc ) .
I then looked at the questions that were asked . I think ( did this a very long time ago ) there was only two . One was something like " do you believe it is likely that man has changed the climate
( or temps ) . " I thought about how urban areas do do this so would have answered yes .
So whoever did this survey would have easily been able , with the selection they used and the questions they asked , to say 100% of scientists agree in man made global warming .
They were smart enough to realise that if they said this even the most gullible person might think twice .
Even the stupid ones will realise that there is not one thing that everybody agrees with . We better say 98% . The gullible people WILL believe that and will not even check ,
So they did and the gullible ones believed it .
This is some top shelf shit right here.
what I really wanna see is a hutch v short showdown.
Hutchy 19 wrote:No worries Stunet !
For those that that think the 98% of scientists believe in man made global warming comment has settled the science below is what I think .
If there are 2% who think otherwise it is my view that it is not settled . As Einstein said " I don't care if everyone believes I am wrong as it only takes 1 to prove I am wrong " .
When this statement came out I thought it WAS a very powerful argument so I checked it out to see if it was true .
Found out they had culled the responses of the so called scientists for their study . The removed many responses for whatever reasons eg not filled out the form correctly . Then I saw that many of the chosen respondents were not even climate scientists and were not even scientists ( eg had worked in a lab etc ) .
I then looked at the questions that were asked . I think ( did this a very long time ago ) there was only two . One was something like " do you believe it is likely that man has changed the climate
( or temps ) . " I thought about how urban areas do do this so would have answered yes .So whoever did this survey would have easily been able , with the selection they used and the questions they asked , to say 100% of scientists agree in man made global warming .
They were smart enough to realise that if they said this even the most gullible person might think twice .
Even the stupid ones will realise that there is not one thing that everybody agrees with . We better say 98% . The gullible people WILL believe that and will not even check ,So they did and the gullible ones believed it .
I believe it. I've even done my research.
I also believe you to be in error, but truly couldn't be bothered pointing it out.
Hutchy, I don't generally engage in these threads, but I feel I have to say something here. 98% is considered to be universal consensus. I wouldnt be surprised if the figure is higher now that even the major fossil fuel polluters are starting to agree that something needs to be done to avoid the worst impacts of climate change (not to mention diversification in energy resources make fiscal sense too).
The consensus is high because the science (at least the fundamental principles of climate change) isn't actually all that complex. Far less complex than aspects of medical and computer science that we rely on day to day. The challenges in evaluating the specific predicted effects become more complex but to disagree with the fundamentals is burying your head in the sand. The thermodynamic principles regarding CO2 and other greenhouse gases potential to absorb solar radiation was established in 1865, well before climate change could be politicized. Simply do a balance of how much CO2 we are outputting (among other greenhouse gases) and doing the math regarting solar radiation a absorption it is (relatively) straightforward to figure out, with the right time, data and resources of course.
Other red herrings that are used by those with ulterior motives, such as blaming the changing climate on minor changes in the earth's orbit, impact of the magnetosphere, etc. have also been considered by climate scientists. Some have more effect than others, but happen at much more significant timescales than what we are observing today.
I encourage you to try to understand the fundamentals of the climate change mechanisms and you will hopefully see how it fits together. Any rational person with some basic scientific understanding should be able to comprehend and accept the science.
Have a good day and hope everyone's getting a few from this tasman low.
Great work Mcface, something to take in Hutchy.
Gee you guys make me laugh . You can believe the science is settled , I don't !
As I found out , and wrote the 98% figure of scientists believing in AGW was total bullshit ! Look it up for yourself how it was done . Don't just believe everything you hear !
98% of Chinese thought Mao was great , Russians Stalin , Germans Hitler . 98% of people thought the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth . 98% of people knew humans couldn't fly . 98% of surfers thought Teahupoo was unsurfable ! The universal consensus has changed !
Guess why BHP will move their Oil division to Woodside ? So all the ESG investors will think they are being green . While at the same time making squillions selling iron ore that needs coal to turn it into
steel . How easily you are fooled .
"Other red herrings that are used by those with ulterior motives, such as blaming the changing climate on minor changes in the earth's orbit, impact of the magnetosphere, etc. have also been considered by climate scientists. Some have more effect than others, but happen at much more significant timescales than what we are observing today."
As I tried to point out with the rainforest analogy the whole climate system is complex and interconnected . In this I said we added one plant ie from 3 to 4 . If we took out one plant ie 3 to 2 ALL the plants would die due to lack of CO2 .
The simple Green House experiment ( Closed atmosphere , one variable etc ) is worthless . As are the computer models , garbage in , garbage out . They cant even give an accurate prediction of next months weather .
Maybe something for you , obviously intelligent , gentlemen to take in ?
Hutchy 19 wrote:As I found out , and wrote the 98% figure of scientists believing in AGW was total bullshit ! Look it up for yourself how it was done . Don't just believe everything you hear !
You don't even know what you're talking about. The consensus idea wasn't based on questions, it was by gathering thousands of thesis on climate change. It's been bounced back and forth extensively, but not at all in the way you've presented it.
You also misrepresented the Einstein quote.
And your bias is on full display when you type things like "so-called scientists".
EDIT: Also, the 'harmless gas' trope you continue on with was debunked years ago when Alan Jones tried it on. Can only shake my head that someone who shamelessly spruiks their superior intelligence thinks people will still fall for it.
Also just because meso/local scale weather is tricky to forecast further than a week away, the broader scale patterns and drivers are forecast fairly accurately. There's also decadal cycles, quasi-biennial cycles (28-29 months) etc etc.
For example with La Niña, I won't be able to tell you which days will be wettest this summer but I can tell you as whole a select location will see more rain than normal. And the models usually do this well.
I wish i knew where i saw it, but i saw an article or maybe it was a video the other week that took climate scientist modelling/predications on future temps from climate scientist in various countries it was in graph form, the views varied so much, i think it showed the go too predicted line was the median of all these outlooks.
indo-dreaming wrote:I wish i knew where i saw it, but i saw an article or maybe it was a video the other week that took climate scientist modelling/predications on future temps from climate scientist in various countries it was in graph form, the views varied so much, i think it showed the go too predicted line was the median of all these outlooks.
Yep for sure, so many different scenarios and outcomes but you take the average of those and get a rough idea. With this we can see the trend is warmer here, more storms there, colder here, drier here, wetter there etc. And plan for this.
Craig-"Great work Mcface, something to take in Hutchy."
Looks like the bucket's full Craig
Stu - I didn't follow the Josey argument but obviously if he said it was harmless you think it is harmful ( re warming ) .
CO2 is clean , non toxic , naturally occurs in the atmosphere at scarce levels (420p/m now ) , its levels have varied over millions of years depending on a huge number of natural variable's eg volcanoes and is needed for plant food . If it increases in the atmosphere plant growth increases dramatically ( saturation point is 800-1000 p/m ) . So a vital ingredient in the circle of life .
Temperatures may also rise due to CO2 increases . Temperatures have been rising since the last Ice
Age . There seems to be an acceleration in the last 50 years .
From The Royal Society
Many complex processes shape our climate
Based just on the physics of the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would by itself cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). In the overall climate system, however, things are more complex; warming leads to further effects (feedbacks) that either amplify or diminish the initial warming.
The most important feedbacks involve various forms of water. A warmer atmosphere generally contains more water vapour. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas, thus causing more warming; its short lifetime in the atmosphere keeps its increase largely in step with warming. Thus, water vapour is treated as an amplifier, and not a driver, of climate change. Higher temperatures in the polar regions melt sea ice and reduce seasonal snow cover, exposing a darker ocean and land surface that can absorb more heat, causing further warming. Another important but uncertain feedback concerns changes in clouds. Warming and increases in water vapour together may cause cloud cover to increase or decrease which can either amplify or dampen temperature change depending on the changes in the horizontal extent, altitude, and properties of clouds. The latest assessment of the science indicates that the overall net global effect of cloud changes is likely to be to amplify warming.
The ocean moderates climate change. The ocean is a huge heat reservoir, but it is difficult to heat its full depth because warm water tends to stay near the surface. The rate at which heat is transferred to the deep ocean is therefore slow; it varies from year to year and from decade to decade, and it helps to determine the pace of warming at the surface. Observations of the sub-surface ocean are limited prior to about 1970, but since then, warming of the upper 700 m (2,300 feet) is readily apparent, and deeper warming is also clearly observed since about 1990.
Surface temperatures and rainfall in most regions vary greatly from the global average because of geographical location, in particular latitude and continental position. Both the average values of temperature, rainfall, and their extremes (which generally have the largest impacts on natural systems and human infrastructure), are also strongly affected by local patterns of winds.
Estimating the effects of feedback processes, the pace of the warming, and regional climate change requires the use of mathematical models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice (the cryosphere) built upon established laws of physics and the latest understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes affecting climate, and run on powerful computers. Models vary in their projections of how much additional warming to expect (depending on the type of model and on assumptions used in simulating certain climate processes, particularly cloud formation and ocean mixing), but all such models agree that the overall net effect of feedbacks is to amplify warming.
From Forbes
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labelled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
Looks to me that the 97% level WAS made up by someone who had their own agenda .
Maybe so. In fact I mentioned it'd been batted back and forth for a long while and people have cherry picked various parts of the argument - much like you have here.
But also, none of that bears any resemblance to "two questions" guff you cited early on. I think you just made that bit up.
I was wrong with these comments -
Found out they had culled the responses of the so called scientists for their study . The removed many responses for whatever reasons eg not filled out the form correctly . Then I saw that many of the chosen respondents were not even climate scientists and were not even scientists ( eg had worked in a lab etc ) .
I then looked at the questions that were asked . I think ( did this a very long time ago ) there was only two . One was something like " do you believe it is likely that man has changed the climate
( or temps ) . " I thought about how urban areas do do this so would have answered yes .
My recollection from 15 years ago was way off the mark . Looking at it again I see that there were two questions the study tried to answer . 1, Is climate change real ? 2. Do humans cause climate change ?
I was right that I did answer yes to both questions and that the paper manipulated the material to get the desired outcome .
Also Stu here is Einstein quote -: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Here is my view on the quote - " I don't care if everyone believes I am wrong as it only takes 1 to prove I am wrong " .
So yes I did misrepresent it but do think I used it in the right context .
Stu-"But also, none of that bears any resemblance to "two questions" guff you cited early on. I think you just made that bit up."
"You don't even know what you're talking about. The consensus idea wasn't based on questions, it was by gathering thousands of thesis on climate change. It's been bounced back and forth extensively, but not at all in the way you've presented it."
Thanks Stu . I hope my misrepresentations are not getting under your skin . A fair bit older than you and happy to point out where my memory was wrong . Was pretty close though .
Not my style to intentionally make things up to support a view .
Heavy isn't it.
And there's this, the last glacial remains in Indonesia (the Carstensz Glacier), set to disappear by 2023. https://www.copernicus.eu/en/media/image-day-gallery/carstensz-glacier-n...
August 2020
wow never knew this ...thanks Craig
https://snowbrains.com/2nd-highest-ski-resort-on-earth-indonesia/
How's the mine site there as well to the west.. Just realised it was a mine and not natural.
Thanks simba and Craig, love learning something new everyday.
Craig, that is the Freeport Grasberg Mine, it is unbelievably huge, possibly the biggest gold mine in the world.
I've flown over it a couple of times, landing in Timika, on an Indo milk run.
Amazing sight, both the mine and Puncak Jaya, from the air.
Ahh I see Distracted, have heard of it.
There is, sadly, a trend of people going to places like that glacier to see them before they're lost. I too feel the urge to try and see these things.
Hutchy...
"Also Stu here is Einstein quote -: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Here is my view on the quote - " I don't care if everyone believes I am wrong as it only takes 1 to prove I am wrong " ."
Looks like you totally misunderstand what Einstein was saying. He was in fact making two points. The first part relates to the fact that despite the outcomes of an experiment, or a million experiments of the exact same process, you can never achieve 100% certainty that the causes you've identified are such. That is because science as a discipline (and I'm talking the classical, hard sciences here) acknowledges that we know enough to know that there's plenty we do not know (because we're always expanding and recalibrating our knowledge), and thus the best we can ever arrive at in terms of our level of confidence in our conclusions is something approaching - but not quite reaching - 100% certainty. For example, if you stood atop a skyscraper and prepared to jump just in your everyday clothing - a physicist would tell you that it's near certain you will fall and die, but there's a tiny, tiny statistical probability that something else will intervene after you jump or there's something we're missing in our "understanding" of gravity, that will prevent you from falling to your death. So your call, yeah sure the physicist is technically <100% certain you'll fall to your death, but you gonna ignore the balance of probabilities and fucken YOLO it off that thing anyway? I think not...
That's what the AR6 authors are saying....we appear as close to 100% as we can statistically get, so act accordingly.
The second part of his quote is basically saying, despite all the above, some yobbo will perform or see a single experiment that goes against an entire body of evidence and think it proves all of it wrong. But that's not how science works and it's not how we got to where we are as a species...
" Once you start declaring things as definitively proven as right or wrong you set yourself up to look foolish when conflicting evidence inevitably arrives."
A comment by another respected poster on this site .
Is the science settled ? No science is ever settled ( maybe maths ) IMO !
Hutchy 19 wrote:" Once you start declaring things as definitively proven as right or wrong you set yourself up to look foolish when conflicting evidence inevitably arrives."
A comment by another respected poster on this site .
Is the science settled ? No science is ever settled ( maybe maths ) IMO !
Question1: So when you said it was arrogant for humans to assume they could ever alter the atmosphere, was that a definitive statement?
Question 2: Have you heard of the hole in the ozone layer? Or even acid rain?
Hello Stu
Not sure I said that humans could not ever alter the atmosphere . We obviously can as proved but CO2 increasing , an expanding ozone hole and acid rain . We put rockets through it all the time . Are you trying to put words in my mouth ? Are you misrepresenting ( your word ) me ? Why do you insinuate I am dumb ?
We can also help close the ozone hole ( which we have done ) and reduce the causes of acid rain . We also stopped putting lead in petrol and hopefully will reduce the terrible amount of plastic's in the Oceans ( a much bigger problem that CO2 ( plant food ) . Our farmers and miners are learning how to reduce the negative affects of their land use and reduce water wastage . Humans are smart .
I have said that the Climate is a very complex system . Anyone that thinks ONE small input ( CO2 @ 4 parts per 100000 that has gone up 33% ie from 3 to 4 in 50 years ) is the only cause of Man Made Global Warming is Dumb .
"Is the science settled ? No science is ever settled ( maybe maths ) IMO !"
like pretty much everything hutch says he completely misunderstands what he has said.
what about the earth being a sphere? there's a possibility its actually flat. science isn't settled.
what about electricity? penicillin? evolution? gravity? photosynthesis?
the scientific method is inherently uncertain but that does not mean that significant questions and discoveries have not been fundamentally settled e.g. human's significant contribution to global warming and the impacts there of.
you confuse scientific uncertainty with doubt. i doubt you share the same evolutionary tree as the rest of us, but its fairly certain you have.
"Anyone that thinks ONE small input ( CO2 @ 4 parts per 100000 that has gone up 33% ie from 3 to 4 in 50 years ) is the only cause of Man Made Global Warming is Dumb ."
-Hutchy
"Once you start declaring things as definitively proven as right or wrong you set yourself up to look foolish when conflicting evidence inevitably arrives."
-Hutchy
Holey Toledo, Batman, it’s September 2021, and still there are miscreants wondering whether climate change is real, and if CO2 is only 400 parts per million how could that cause warming, and such guff.
On the science is settled argument, sure, some science isn’t settled, but some of it is. Theoretical physics isn’t settled, it theoretical, that’s what Einstein was talking about.
Chemistry isn’t settled, but only in the sense that they are finding out more. There are vast areas of chemistry that are settled. Add this to that and you’ll get the other thing. Settled. Proved. Unerring. One of them is that adding CO2 in a closed environment will trap more heat. Settled. Proved.
Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, no change, not heat trapping gases. Settled.
The rest is conjecture on what effects that will have, and is not settled, but the vast, vast majority of people who study this say it will lead to things that look exactly like what we are seeing. That’s just reality. Reality is hardly settled though because my reality is different from yours.
But if you’re standing on train tracks and there is a crowd of people around you saying that thing coming down the tracks is a train, get off the tracks, you’ll be killed, and one guy says, not it’s not, it’s just a mirage, and the noise is becoming deafening and the vibrations on the track are increasing, and one guy it still saying “It’s just a mirage”, you are still free to believe whatever you want.
But coming on here, a surf website, and still coming up with those same tired lines and trying to sow doubt where there is very little, and if you’re wrong the future of humanity is seriously in question, and you blithely want to stand out as that one person, well, good luck to you.
Your lack of concern for my children and all young people is duly noted.
bonza wrote:"Is the science settled ? No science is ever settled ( maybe maths ) IMO !"
like pretty much everything hutch says he completely misunderstands what he has said.
what about the earth being a sphere? there's a possibility its actually flat. science isn't settled.
what about electricity? penicillin? evolution? gravity? photosynthesis?the scientific method is inherently uncertain but that does not mean that significant questions and discoveries have not been fundamentally settled e.g. human's significant contribution to global warming and the impacts there of.
you confuse scientific uncertainty with doubt. i doubt you share the same evolutionary tree as the rest of us, but its fairly certain you have.
Exactly, not worth wasting time on.
I lost all patience and respect for those that deny climate science long ago. Whatever their motivation it is such a waste of time and (your positive) energy to engage them in any meaningful or polite way. I heard a good analogy once - the climate change denier is like the alcoholic who denies they have a drinking problem; there’s no point in arguing with them.
Stu . You have used Bens quote and credited me .
All the comments above support my view .
You people who have the view that CO2 is the only culprit are the ones scaring the shit out of my kids saying the earth and humans are fucked if we don't change .
As you all say some parts of science are settled now . In all the examples you give Bonza the science was wrong before new information came to hand .
You all can view that science IS settled on CO2 being the only contributor to our ever changing climate and ever changing temperature's .
Here is Bens comment again and I think it is spot on .
"Once you start declaring things as definitively proven as right or wrong you set yourself up to look foolish when conflicting evidence inevitably arrives."
Maybe you should go buy another investment property instead of coming on here starting arguments Hutchy
I hope we all agree that that the earth's climate and temperatures have always changed and always will .
These changes have been proven over history to happen in decades not just centuries .
The Suns activity changes sometimes over decades . It does affect climate changes and temperatures . As NASA say predicting the Suns changes is in the early stages . Like predicting weather 100 years
ago . So even they have no real idea what is going on .
From NASA .
The solar minimum before the beginning of Solar Cycle 24 lasted several years longer than expected before once again turning back toward increased sunspot activity in 2009. But even though we saw less activity in this recent cycle, we do not yet know how much activity the next one will bring. On occasion, researchers have made predictions that coming solar cycles may also exhibit extended periods of minimal activity. A prolonged period of low solar activity, over several decades, for example, would be what we term a Grand Minimum – something we haven’t seen since the early 1700s. The models for such predictions, however, are still not as robust as models for terrestrial weather and are not considered conclusive.
At the moment, predictive powers about solar activity is comparable to the early days of weather forecasting. Researchers can usually predict the direction in which a space storm will travel, but they can't predict ahead of time when activity might occur. By observing the Sun with the NASA's heliophysics fleet, studying how acoustic waves roll across the Sun's interior with helioseismology, and Earth-based monitoring of incoming magnetic activity from the Sun, scientists are working to create better models and better predictions – which will ultimately protect our spacecraft and astronauts in space.
.