Have we been conned

[the_hawk*]

What is the truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html

[donnashuggy]

cooler under a tree? may be because of the shade:-D

Gosh you are clever oz-girl 😄

[the_hawk*]

Haven't you spent a lot of time in the sun in the outback  😉

[the_hawk*]

Gosh you are clever oz-girl 😄

a little education, read and learn  http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cooling+effects+of+trees&rlz=1W1SAVJ_enAU509&oq=cooling+effects+&gs_l=hp.1.3.0l3j0i22i30l7.1532.6032.1.9235.16.13.0.3.3.1.735.4623.2-6j5j1j0j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.hp.26eq3I5NSNg&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGY&fp=fa053f86b6abb411&biw=800&bih=399

[just_me_karen]

A quick read back shows me everyone in this thread has spent time in the outback, including yourself... So what's your point? And why the wink? :^O

[donnashuggy]

a little education, read and learn  http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cooling+effects+of+trees&rlz=1W1SAVJ_enAU509&oq=cooling+effects+&gs_l=hp.1.3.0l3j0i22i30l7.1532.6032.1.9235.16.13.0.3.3.1.735.4623.2-6j5j1j0j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.hp.26eq3I5NSNg&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGY&fp=fa053f86b6abb411&biw=800&bih=399

I wasn't born yesterday hawk lol

[the_hawk*]

Actually I haven't spent time in the outback as I prefer the cooler coast areas, it seems the sun has long term effects on some, heat stroke and that sort of thing. 😉

[just_me_karen]

Ohhh I see, it was a personal insult (and not even a good one) because you can't think of a sensible solution :^O 

[monman12]

TH: "So John by your own chart it was .4 of a degree below the average 150 years ago and now its .4 above the average. "
And??? The increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is largely responsible for the observed warming of 0.74°C over the 20th century.

"and John I think you will find even the so called experts have conceded on the global warming theory and are now going along the climate change lines which by some strange way rain forests have a huge effect on weather patterns globally"
Explain the above, please TH, bearing in mind that the preponderance of experts all agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. Try our own CSIRO or the BOM

"rain forests have a huge effect" Nonsense

Show us some credible links TH, with peer reviewed studies for "more  trees will cool the world down!." In the meantime ponder these:

1. Evaporation certainly cools, but all the heat is released upon subsequent condensation (conservation of energy) thus evaporation cannot directly affect the global balance of energy of the world.

2. Water vapour is in itself a potent greenhouse gas with a positive feedback effect that doubles the effect of CO2 warming.

3. Oceans cover 71% of the planet and happily evaporate away, however TH, ocean temperatures have risen, not as fast, 20% (thermal inertia) but their temperatues have risen, and continue to do so. "0.59-degree Celsius temperature increase at the ocean's surface over the last 135 years"

Forests  currently cover approximately 30 percent of total land area,  though they once covered much more, about 50 percent of total land area. I would suggest that even if you could suddenly reverse the 40% reduction of forest area it would have no significant effect upon global warming

A graph for you TH:-

[the_hawk*]

Not a good one! its the best I can do under the current system because I am well aware of what happens, most only see the result 😞  I have seen the planning and all out efforts 😞

[the_hawk*]

Forests  currently cover approximately 30 percent of total land area,  though they once covered much more, about 50 percent of total land area. I would suggest that even if you could suddenly reverse the 40% reduction of forest area it would have no significant effect upon global warming

John and I suggest that a rip off tax on the over all small amount of CO2 that Oz we can reduce also wont have any effect on the outcome.

I firmly believe the change has more to do with the huge deduction of rain forests that are causing these changes and not just the use of fossil fuels.

If the forests are reduced by 40% (your figure) then there has to be a reduction of 40% of CO2 absorbed by these forests?

So between the deduction of absorbed CO2 along with the changing weather patterns caused by there destruction why is this not a more reasonable explanation for climatic changes over a simplistic one of we are creating CO2 and have to tax it.

How is this tax going to help us when there are no trees left to take up the CO2 and return O2 to the atmosphere