The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dipshit]

To me,you can't have 5 billion people using energy, food and water and not have an affect on the climate after the last couple of centuries. Anyone seen pictures of Beijing?

I have a friend in Hong Kong who sends me photos and you can't even see the tops of buildings because of the grey smog.

For anyone that thinks the sky is too big for us to have any significant impact on - think about this...

If you take a typical size globe you might find in a classroom, the thickness of the atmosphere would be the same as the thickness of a sheet of paper laid over it. We are only talking about 50 km or so that is separating us from space with its 240 degrees in the sunlight and -240 as soon as you're out of the sun. It is only that layer of gases which is giving us much more moderate temperatures between the daytime and nighttime.

Astronauts who get into space for the first time are always struck by how thin and delicate the atmosphere looks. A thin blue fuzzy haze is all they can see. The Apollo crews that got further away from earth couldn't even see the thickness of the atmosphere at all. (2nd pic)

[Jantar]

I'm still waiting for you to show me some credible alternative data that can can explain the speed of global warming. and I confess it is the speed of warming that is occuring that leads me to believe that Co2 emissions are the primary cause of riseing temperture.

Skyryder

Surely the MSU data is credible enough to show that the earth isn't warming? How do you expect me to show credible alternative data that can can explain the speed of global warming when we are currently cooling?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...su#post1591266

[Jantar]

I have a friend in Hong Kong who sends me photos and you can't even see the tops of buildings because of the grey smog.

And this has what to do with global warming? All greenhouse gasses are invisible. ie Water Vapour, CO2, methane. Smog is visible particulates, and I believe we have already ALL agreed that we do need to do something about pollution. That is a different argument though.

[dipshit]

However I am interested in your assertion that Artic/Antartic sea temperatures are rising, as all the data I've seen shows that they are currently falling. Can you point me to the actual data showing that they are currently rising?

You might want to try googleing 'melting permafrost' for some evidence of overall long-term warming trends.

i.e..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climatechange1

"Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age."

[Patar]

1)Yes, there are two problems with that message. First is that there has been no warming for the past decade and the earth is currently cooling. Second, more efficient technologies has nothing to do with AGW.

2)Just the opposite in fact. It is saying that we should be doing things for factual reasons, not for religious like beliefs.

3)We bankrupt our country, hold back developement in emerging economies, and cause massive starvation.


4)I look forward to seeing your data supporting this claim.

1) The main message that should and is being derived from AGW is that we should be reducing our impact on the environment. Getting people to become more aware of their CO2 emissions is making people a lot more aware of all the other wastage that goes on.

2) The counter argument says nothing about what we should be doing, all it states is that AGW isn't based on proper science. Effectively justifying for people who want to go out and buy their huge suv gas guzzlers etc. and giving people no reason to change.

3)There is no reason for any country to be hugely financially impacted by the replacement of outdated technologies. For example, if a proper public transport system was installed in Auckland, one that was capable of servicing the population then it would pay for itself, not to mention savings from reduced road maintenance costs etc.

4) If you don't know that deforestation can/does have an impact on the climate then you should go do some learning before posting in this thread. I could go find a shit ton of data on reflectivity of different surface, energy absorption capabilities, carbon adsorption etc. Hell I could even find you resources for you showing that nutrient loading on water supplies can lead to algal growth, insanely apparent in lakes that undergo eutrophication (a natural phenomenon but heavily accelerated by human activity, oh wait possibly like AGW, note the word possibly). All of this has been proven many times and there should be no debate.



If Osama told you that murder is bad, would you immediately question it? I mean Osama is a pretty bad guy, can't trust what he says, right?

Now if you would kindly tell me what the problem with encouraging the use of more efficient and environmentally friendly technologies is? Regardless of the source.

[Jantar]

4) If you don't know that deforestation can/does have an impact on the climate then you should go do some learning before posting in this thread. ...

In view of your obviously superior knowledge on this subject, maybe you could explain to me why, with all this pollution and increasing CO2 we humans are pumping into the atmosphere, is the earth currently cooling?

[dipshit]

And this has what to do with global warming? All greenhouse gasses are invisible. ie Water Vapour, CO2, methane. Smog is visible particulates, and I believe we have already ALL agreed that we do need to do something about pollution. That is a different argument though.

The sizes of cities around the world now with increasing populations and urban sprawl can certainly effect the atmosphere with millions of vehicles and factories and so on releasing CO2 amongst all that visible smog.

CO2 monitors in the French Alps can detect London rush-hour traffic several hours afterwards if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

[Jantar]

The sizes of cities around the world now with increasing populations and urban sprawl can certainly effect the atmosphere with millions of vehicles and factories and so on releasing CO2 amongst all that visible smog.

CO2 monitors in the French Alps can detect London rush-hour traffic several hours afterwards if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Yes, I agree. Beck wrote a great paper on this showing how CO2 fluctuates with time of day and location, but the IPCC poo-poohed the idea and claimed that CO2 concentration is constant all over the world. Unfortunately, if what you have just stated, and Beck also claimed, is correct, then the AGW climate models fail to predict a global climate change.

[Skyryder]

Surely the MSU data is credible enough to show that the earth isn't warming? How do you expect me to show credible alternative data that can can explain the speed of global warming when we are currently cooling?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...su#post1591266

Yes I have seen some comments agreeing with you on this. But I must confess they are only comments not 'data'.

This shows otherwise.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato..._data.htm#fig2


Take a look at the sources. NASA is one. Seems pretty credible to me.

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

Note your use of the word "can". That doesn't always mean 'does". I would still ask for an answer to my question "How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?"

You want a hypothetical or a factual answer? If I could give you the latter I would consider myself to be in the wrong field.
As for the hypothetical answer, your imagination is the limit.

Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59991

Interesting theory. Guess I won't have to sell the GT-B just yet

And this has what to do with global warming? All greenhouse gasses are invisible. ie Water Vapour, CO2, methane. Smog is visible particulates, and I believe we have already ALL agreed that we do need to do something about pollution. That is a different argument though.

I saw a cloud yesterday...

and the smog over Chch is very real indeed. But as you say, smog and climate change are not likely strongly coupled.


Anyway, I just hope that some bright fellow will come up with a nice model that will be able to at least predict some of the trends correctly so we might get a more solid feel for what is going on. If anything, this thread highlights how much the opinion of people in the know diverges.

[davereid]

One thing we can be sure of...

Global warming hasn't killed anyone yet.

But hysteria about it has already killed millions.

The rush to biofuels has already starved millions of people, as they can no longer afford food.

Global warming hysteria has killed more than the nazi concentration camps. More than Pol-Pot.

And its got years to run !

But no doubt the greens will blame me for not taking the bus.

[Jantar]

Yes I have seen some comments agreeing with you on this. But I must confess they are only comments not 'data'.

This shows otherwise.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato..._data.htm#fig2


Take a look at the sources. NASA is one. Seems pretty credible to me.

Skyryder

If you look closer, you'll see that what I provided was the actual data.

However, thankyou for that link, embeded within it was a link to the actual GISS data used. I only had indirect access to that previously. I would draw your attention to this

sources: GHCN 1880-04/2008 (meteorological stations only)

found at the top of the data page.

ie, that data is for ground stations only. It excludes all sea based stations, and all atmospheric records (Radiosonde and satellite). It is not therefore a true global measurement.

I have added the ground based temperatures to the previous graph. They do tell a slightly different story, but still show significant cooling over the past year.

[Swoop]

We have to get away from the mentality of cheap.

The $25- angle grinder that you purchase at Mitre 10, that you know will only do one job, then be thrown away and add to a landfill somewhere.
The resources that went into producing that item + the energy resources consumed in the production cycle... distribution costs, etc.

Yet paying a bit more to have something that will last longer and consume less, over a greater timespan.

Quality!
(Sounding like a stuck record of Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance...).

[Zookey]

BUt then we have an incumbent GOVT. that wanted a fart tax,It doesnt take someone writing up a thesis to get a grant for college,to not realise that the population of one Earthquake hit city in China,are contributing to the global hows ya father by simply breaking wind ,and they do eat a lot of cabbage.

[avgas]

The $25- angle grinder that you purchase at Mitre 10,

Has lasted me 2 years, the $20 drill has lasted me 6 years. And the drill has a KEYED chuck, unlike those Keyless POS they sell for $500.
It takes 10 seconds to kill those keyless chucks in the wrong circumstances. My father still has his Ryobi Keyed drill from 25 years ago. Yet he has been through 5 keyless ones.
Also when buying power tools - Skil may be cheap but its Bosch in a cheap box basically. That and DEWALT is not all its 'cracked' up to be.