The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Badjelly]

Quasievil has suggested a climate change thread.

I know a little bit about climate science and I am convinced that the human influence on the climate over at least the last few decades has been considerable (via greenhouse gases, mostly) and is going to get larger.

But I have to ask...


Global warming........maybe, climates changed since earth ws created and will always do so, Man made PFFFTT !! its the biggest swindle in the modern world, designed to get people paid and that dont include us


The whole global warming thing is about money, kyoto has taken Trillions and for what gain, next is the copenhagen treay, that will take more and it will take it from the average kiwi to the tune of around $3,000 pa minimum.

Given this point of view, what could I possibly say about climate change science that might change your mind? Clearly I'm in it for the money and can be expected to perjure myself to perpetuate the swindle.

And how much do you think climate scientists get paid, anyway?

[Magua]

These threads come, people argue and no one changes anyone's viewpoint.

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes. _b

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=the+skeptical+environmentalist&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Anz6SfWbFciIkAX3n9zrBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA178,M1

[Badjelly]

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes.

I read that a few years ago. I was quite impressed overall at the time, but I did notice that I found the bits where he talked about stuff I already knew something about much less impressive than the others.

[Mikkel]

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes.

Bjorn Lomborg certainly raises some valid points - but the role he playing in the debate is more so that of a provocateur who challenges the established way of thinking rathen than that of an objective scientist presenting the results of a thorough investigation of the matter. Not that it isn't an important role, but it hardly provides us with any significant insights.

[Badjelly]

So the new thread has been merged with The Great Global Warming Swindle. Thanks mods. :shit:

I never participated in that thread because I found the whole thing too depressing. FFS people, The Great Global Warming Swindle is a swindle. And that's all I have to say on that subject.

Edit: well OK, I did participate in that thread, or maybe in one that got merged with it, but only a little


You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a TV documentary.

[Swoop]

Buckets of instant sunshine.

[Skyryder]

I've posted my views on this in another thread so will not repeat myself again.

You can argue who or what is at fault for global warming but the fact is it is occurring.

If methane is added to the mix ya can kiss the planet as we know it goodbye.

This will not happen in my generation and for some not yours........but ya kids and theirs......................................?????? ?????????????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE1LiftbMeE


Read the more info on this with the link.


Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Quasievil has suggested a climate change thread.

I know a little bit about climate science and I am convinced that the human influence on the climate over at least the last few decades has been considerable (via greenhouse gases, mostly) and is going to get larger.

But I have to ask...





Given this point of view, what could I possibly say about climate change science that might change your mind? Clearly I'm in it for the money and can be expected to perjure myself to perpetuate the swindle.

And how much do you think climate scientists get paid, anyway?

It simply doesn't matter. Organisms have had a profound effect on the Earth's atmospheric and climate, including the composition of the atmosphere, since the planet aggregated an atmosphere and evolved life or had it placed on it.

The climate changes. Big deal.

Climate change only matters because we have the supreme arrogance to assume that we are important at a planetary level. We're not. We're just another sack of carbon and water that's overdone things. Maybe there's a CO2 breather working it's way up from the Atlantic trench, biding it's time for "planetary supremacy".

Whether we've tripped some cosmic, planetary balance or not is immaterial. To assume total responsibility for an issue like this when our total CO2 output is dwarfed by what the mid-Atlantic trench spews out is the stuff of mystical psuedo science.

We should be vastly more concerned about compounds that "aerosol" in the upper atmosphere, like sulphuric acid, which create a reflective layer in the atmosphere bouncing the Sun's warmth back out into space. I blame volcanoes.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, the oceans don't rise because the ice caps melt. It's still the same amount of H2O in the system. It just occupies more volume because it's temperature has gone up. Bear in mind 98% of the world's ice is under water already and displaced quite a lot of water, just like a fat man in a bath, rising sea water and coastal erosion might be a bit over dramatised.

Mountains slowly crumble, the sea eats the coastline, earthquakes and volcanoes push up "new" land and still we think that because we can sometimes gain a foothold in otherwise untenable terrain that we're special. We're about as special as lichen.

[SPman]

Climate warms...climate cools....sea level drops, or goes up.....
So what!

We're so f*cking arrogant, we think the world is a fixed entity and how dare it change ...

If it's getting hotter and sea levels start to rise and we might have helped to accelerate the process........isn't humans strength meant to be adaptability!

So - adapt!

Or die!

Quite simple really, why complain about it!

[Mikkel]

Oh yeah, while we're at it, the oceans don't rise because the ice caps melt. It's still the same amount of H2O in the system. It just occupies more volume because it's temperature has gone up. Bear in mind 98% of the world's ice is under water already and displaced quite a lot of water, just like a fat man in a bath, rising sea water and coastal erosion might be a bit over dramatised.

Sorry Jim, but that is quite simply incorrect. Quite a bit of ice is sitting on dry land and if that is added to the oceans it could make a change. But as far as the north pole goes you are correct.

Other than that I have to agree to most of the rest you wrote.

Yes, mankind is arrogant in thinking that our actions are likely to have a profound impact upon the plant - but conversely we are lame in arguing we don't. The climate debate is important for no other reason than to establish how much of an impact we have. And please remember that the inertia of a global system is huge. What changes we are observing right now may be caused simply by what happened the first 50 years after the industrial revolution. At the end of the day we do not properly understand the system because it is both vast and complex.

As SPman said - humanity's strength is adaptability (and you could well argue that the institutionalisation of that strength is science and technology) - if we are to adapt to radical changes we would do well to predict them first!

One thought to bear in mind: At this day and age we are burning, every year, an amount of fossil fuels equal to one million years production. We are - if I may engage in a dramatic allegory - currently burning away the heritage left behind from the evolution of carbonbased lifeforms on this planet at a rate of 1 to 1.000.000 - and there's currently no plan and no investment of that heritage.

[James Deuce]

Sorry Jim, but that is quite simply incorrect. Quite a bit of ice is sitting on dry land and if that is added to the oceans it could make a change. But as far as the north pole goes you are correct.


Not massively incorrect but pulled out of my arse after 5 beers. The correct ratios is 80%. 98% of fresh water is bound up in ice. Simple alcohol induced fact juxtaposition.

The volumes are breathtaking. Ice on land doesn't begin to approach the sheer volume contained under water at the polar caps.

Antarctica is one of the dryest places on the planet. The bulk of Antarctic ice is bound up in ice shelfs that extend over the sea.

[James Deuce]

The climate debate is important for no other reason than to establish how much of an impact we have. And please remember that the inertia of a global system is huge. What changes we are observing right now may be caused simply by what happened the first 50 years after the industrial revolution. At the end of the day we do not properly understand the system because it is both vast and complex.

As SPman said - humanity's strength is adaptability (and you could well argue that the institutionalisation of that strength is science and technology) - if we are to adapt to radical changes we would do well to predict them first!


The climate change debate is completely irrelevant and is diverting money, resource and political capital away from developing a society that can rapidly adapt to accelerating climate change. How climate change happens isn't vaguely important compared to how we adapt.

There's far too much energy going into presenting and trying to "win" an argument that appears on the face of it to be black and white.

Debate in the face of crisis is always pointless. Develop tools to predict crisis points, both immediate and long term, and develop the mechanisms to avert catastrophic systems failures. People are going to die as a result of climate change but not in grandiose "The Day After" scenarios.

[Mikkel]

Not massively incorrect but pulled out of my arse after 5 beers.

98% of anything pulled out of anyone's arse after 5 beers is bullshit! ;)


98% of fresh water is bound up in ice.

I am neither going to dispute that nor support it. I don't know. Did you check it yourself or do you have a reference to go with that figure?

Information on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Geography) suggests 78% (70%/0.9) of the worlds fresh water is bound up in ice.


The volumes are breathtaking. Ice on land doesn't begin to approach the sheer volume contained under water at the polar caps.

Be that as it may, it is however easy to underestimate the volumes of water contained in the masses of ice situated both on Greenland (it's not all under the current sea-level) and Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica). The ice above sealevel on antarctica is estimated to cause a global rise in sealevels of 60 m if it all melted.


Antarctica is one of the dryest places on the planet.

That is correct, which is just another resaon we're in deep shit if the ice melted. Water has been bound in ice on the antarctic continent for ages and ages - if that ice melts there's no easy way to make it accumulate there again since there is no noticable precipitation.


The climate change debate is completely irrelevant and is diverting money, resource and political capital away from developing a society that can rapidly adapt to accelerating climate change. How climate change happens isn't vaguely important compared to how we adapt.

If you do not understand why something happens you can not predict it. We need to predict climate change if we are to have any hope of rapidly adapt and so sustaining the standard of living that we have gotten used to.


There's far too much energy going into presenting and trying to "win" an argument that appears on the face of it to be black and white.

Nothing is black and white and only the feebleminded insists that reality is that simple.


Debate in the face of crisis is always pointless. Develop tools to predict crisis points, both immediate and long term, and develop the mechanisms to avert catastrophic systems failures. People are going to die as a result of climate change but not in grandiose "The Day After" scenarios.

I agree, action not words is the only thing that gets things done. But if you think before you act you are less likely to waste your effort. And of course you are right that there'll be no dramatic "The Day After" scenarios - that's the other extreme of irrationality that suggests that.

[James Deuce]

Nobody's working on predicting climate change or the effects of climate change. They seem to be working on scaring "simple folk" into into the disaster model and recommending a return to horseshit powered serfdom to "fix" climate change.

[Mikkel]

Nobody's working on predicting climate change or the effects of climate change. They seem to be working on scaring "simple folk" into into the disaster model and recommending a return to horseshit powered serfdom to "fix" climate change.

Close but not true. There would be plenty of people who are working on predicting these things - it's just that the scaremongers yell louder and are better at capturing headlines. If anything you should blame the media and the ignorance of what constitute the common sense in this day and age. The sheeple revel in sensationalism...

[Dave Lobster]

Would you two like to get a room? :)

[Quasievil]

Some FACTS as supported by SCIENCE

Global climate change is NOT caused by man and their is no evidence to support it is.

Global climate change is a natural event

Some FACTS

The scare mongers and the stupid people that follow them are sucked into the biggest CON of the modern world

There is money being made, huge volumes of money being made and after the Copenhagen treaty is signed even more money will be made, this treaty will give the governments of this world the mandate to tax high rates to its populations. Governments will rush to sign this treaty for the taxing bennifits, ask yourself how will this money train change the global warming scenario (if indeed its true)

This is NOT about the environment this is about money pure and simple.

wake up people

[Skyryder]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/



There is a lot of info in the lower link. Just click on the left hand window.

http://www.causesofglobalwarming.net/




Anyone who thinks that the current levels of global warming are part of a natural cycle needs to take a hard look at what is happening to our climate. It is true that natural events such as volcanic activity can and do lead to an increase in co2 levels.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282246.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025091047.htm

On what I can find on the net there is no doubt in my mind that global warming is man made. Scientists will never agree, or very rarely on any theory. That some produce theories culminating is studies for big business whose interests are to deny global warming as a man made phenomenon is in itself as suspect as the theory that they themselves oppose.

Whatever the cause of global warming it is happening and at a faster rate than anything from the past. This in itself should indicate to most that the current trend in rising temperatures are a result of man made components.

Skyryder

[Quasievil]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/



There is a lot of info in the lower link. Just click on the left hand window.

http://www.causesofglobalwarming.net/




Anyone who thinks that the current levels of global warming are part of a natural cycle needs to take a hard look at what is happening to our climate. It is true that natural events such as volcanic activity can and do lead to an increase in co2 levels.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282246.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025091047.htm

On what I can find on the net there is no doubt in my mind that global warming is man made. Scientists will never agree, or very rarely on any theory. That some produce theories culminating is studies for big business whose interests are to deny global warming as a man made phenomenon is in itself as suspect as the theory that they themselves oppose.

Whatever the cause of global warming it is happening and at a faster rate than anything from the past. This in itself should indicate to most that the current trend in rising temperatures are a result of man made components.

Skyryder

The IPCC, the UN's climate change body has detected human induced global warming activity in just one 25 year period, up to 1998. Since 1998 the consensus of the four bodies that measure the worlds temperature is that the world has not warmed, it hasnt warmed for a decade and over the last couple of years it has actually cooled, how many more years of no-warming will it take before you accept that the global warming theory on which the carbon cutting scam is based on is actually wrong..........One more year of non warming? five years, or 15 ?

[wbks]

I suggest that all conspiracy theorists from here on stop basing their theory's on a tv show they watched or an article they read on teh interweb

[Quasievil]

I suggest that all conspiracy theorists from here on stop basing their theory's on a tv show they watched or an article they read on teh interweb

Im studying a book at the moment about it, I was a believer in the man made global warming scenario, now Im opposed to it completely.

But those that are believers I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

How much $$$ has NZ paid to the 1990 Kyoto protocol so Far? and why are we as a country 33% over our 1990 target? and where is the tax payers money, who has it, and how is it being used. NZ is one of the worst performers out of the Kyoto signatories and yet our beloved Helen Clarke was named UN "Champion of the Earth award" winner, not bad for a failure yet she is now in charge of a 5 billion dollar budget which includes climate change policy............I reckon thats weird

Im not trying to argue guys n girls, Im keen on a lively polite debate tho, Im reading a book at the moment which is very very interesting and yes it is obviously full of facts and Im quoting them here.
So this could be a cool debate I reckon

[Skyryder]

Well I’m not too sure where got that data from but this from the second report of the IPCC.

The first para reads

The earth's climate is changing and "human activity" -- primarily the use of oil and fossil fuels -- is to blame, according to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.albionmonitor.com/12-21-95/globalwarmipcc.html


By far the majority of climatologists claim that global warming has and still is occurring and is man made.

What is this book that you speak of Quasi??





Skyryder

[SPman]

Global warming certainly is not slowed down, by the amount of crap pumped into the atmosphere. Caused, or merely exacerbated by human actions, governments should be planning on how to adapt to the different climate scenarios, instead of arguing over big business money making schemes like carbon credits, et al.
Too much sensationalism and scaremongering, too little real planning on how to adapt to worst possible scenarios. (although, people in West Australia are quietly working around increased heat, even less water, reality, that is unfolding over here.)

[davereid]

I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

This is the interesting bit I think.

Carbon taxes - and trading work by rationing carbon. Your ration card looks like a $100 note, so it effectively stops the poor accessing cheap energy.

The idea is that the higher price will cause a lowering in demand for carbon intensive products and services, with someone (I'm not quite sure who) clipping the ticket as the carbon credit whirls past, to make a fortune bigger than Bill Gates.

Its the perfect product, the carbon credit. You don't have to manufacture it, store it, or transport it. It can't be stolen or forged, but its worth billions of dollars. You can sell it, sell futures in it, and raise finance on the strength of having it.

Yey it all comes down to the idea that putting the price up will lower demand.

If we really HAVE to do something, and the tool we are going to use is increased prices, then IMHO it sould be a simple tax, with no trading. Then the Tax money could be used for REAL environmental projects.

For example, this years tax could be used exclusively for restoring wetland areas. Next years tax for another environmental project with a clearly defined outcome, and clearly defined costs.

Carbon trading has clearly defined costs and benefits.. but the environment is not considered except as a side effect.

Really, carbon trading is the biggest scam we have ever been subjected to.

[Skyryder]

Credits versus taxes
Credits were chosen by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to Carbon taxes. A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not hypothecated, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government may be applied inefficiently or not used to benefit the environment.
By treating emissions as a market commodity it becomes easier for business to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using well understood market theories. Thus the main advantages of a tradable carbon credit over a carbon tax are:
• the price is more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it, as the cost of carbon is set by the market, and not by politicians. Investors in credits have more control over their own costs.
• the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes, through its internationally-agreed validation process.

I got the above from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit


There’s a fair bit here on this.

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

I don’t know enough about carbon credits or the trade thereof to have an informed opinion as to its merits one way or the other.

Skyryder

[Quasievil]

[I]

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

Skyryder

No its not the Carbon credits that are a scam, it is the manifestation of agendas leading people to think that global warming is human created that is the scam, the mechanism being used to deal with it is money via way of Kyoto and the new Copenhagen treaty within all this is the scam.

The cases used by the scare mongers are without doubt factually floored at a astonishing level, the arguments about the global warming being caused by humans are simply stupid.

the book is AIR CON by Ian Wishart, very good but very heavy reading !

[jonbuoy]

So who will be right? Chicken little or the ostriches? Guess we find out in 20 years. Humans can´t possible affect the planet?? Umm we did manage to make a big hole in the Ozone layer in a short space of time, wipe out a shocking number of animal and plant species, and a couple of nuclear accidents have made a few places uninhabitable for hundreds of years. And regardless of climate change we need to cut back on fossil fuel burning so the dregs last a bit longer. It doesn´t really matter what we think, smarter and better informed people make the decisions.

[wbks]

Im studying a book at the moment about it, I was a believer in the man made global warming scenario, now Im opposed to it completely.

But those that are believers I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

How much $$$ has NZ paid to the 1990 Kyoto protocol so Far? and why are we as a country 33% over our 1990 target? and where is the tax payers money, who has it, and how is it being used. NZ is one of the worst performers out of the Kyoto signatories and yet our beloved Helen Clarke was named UN "Champion of the Earth award" winner, not bad for a failure yet she is now in charge of a 5 billion dollar budget which includes climate change policy............I reckon thats weird

Im not trying to argue guys n girls, Im keen on a lively polite debate tho, Im reading a book at the moment which is very very interesting and yes it is obviously full of facts and Im quoting them here.
So this could be a cool debate I reckonI wasn't making a crack at anyone either, I just think it sounds funny when people talk about an elaborate cover up that for example involves hundreds of powerful politicians etc and yet they think that after the accused have gone to all the effort of bribing and silencing people they are going to let them air a show or publish a book that actually unveils it all. See what I'm getting at? Of course, then you could be right and the "powers that be" are perfectly comfortable in the fact that the belief is now mainstream and anyone that doesn't believe in it is recognized as a conspiracy theorist or of being ignorant, so the doubt takes care of itself.

[Quasievil]

It doesn´t really matter what we think, smarter and better informed people make the decisions.

Yes thats true, I hope that people open there minds a tad and block out a bit of media and government crap and figure it out from a bit of reading and study.
Its easy to follow the crowd aint it.

[Naki Rat]

the book is AIR CON by Ian Wishart, very good but very heavy reading !

Having read 'Eve's Bite' and 'Absolute Power' by Ian Wishart I know that he researchs his books well and anything he writes is above reproach. I plan to get Air Con and expect it will be a pretty heavy read but well worth the effort :yes:

[peasea]

Global warming certainly is not slowed down, by the amount of crap pumped into the atmosphere. Caused, or merely exacerbated by human actions, governments should be planning on how to adapt to the different climate scenarios, instead of arguing over big business money making schemes like carbon credits, et al.
Too much sensationalism and scaremongering, too little real planning on how to adapt to worst possible scenarios. (although, people in West Australia are quietly working around increased heat, even less water, reality, that is unfolding over here.)


I would have to question you're being on KB SPman. You are making far too much sense. Global warming/cooling comes and goes (ice ages et al) and no amount of taxation will prevent it. There is also a set amount of fresh water on the planet, some places have too much, some too little. It's down to us to distribute it for all to survive.

However, all of us surviving might not be such a good thing.

[Indiana_Jones]

So let me get this right, taxing people more money will save the world.

righto.....

-Indy

[davereid]

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

There is no doubt it is a scam, and its very much under political control. The trading of credits is very much free market. But the supply of credits is determined by "experts" appointed politically.

New Zealand is a perfect example. The production of food, particularly dairy and meat is seen as a carbon bad guy.

The main reason for it being a bad guy, is the fact that our good-guy is not counted.

That is to say, the endless fast growing grasslands that our animals eat are not counted by the carbon bean counters.

They can't count the animals grassland (good) input, yet they are keen as can be to penalise the output.

Something just doesnt add up when normal environmentally well managed, and essentially very important things like food production are the bad guys...

[Blatman]

I wouldn't base my convictions on anything that Ian Wishart wrote, I mean c'mon he's a far right Christian who runs a conspiracy theory magazine (Inverstigate) that quotes the Old Testament to explain truths to readers.
The moon landings never happened and I suppose Elvis told him that?

[peasea]

So let me get this right, taxing people more money will save the world.

righto.....

-Indy

That's what they'd have us think, unless of course you're a free thinker and don't drink water laced with flouride. Or is that a conspiracy too?

[Indiana_Jones]

That's what they'd have us think, unless of course you're a free thinker and don't drink water laced with flouride. Or is that a conspiracy too?

I drink my water from the tap!

-Indy

[Quasievil]

I wouldn't base my convictions on anything that Ian Wishart wrote, I mean c'mon he's a far right Christian who runs a conspiracy theory magazine (Inverstigate) that quotes the Old Testament to explain truths to readers.
The moon landings never happened and I suppose Elvis told him that?

You dont have to, he is one in thousands saying the same thing including 31000 scientists you have signed a petition stating global warming is not man made, can you lead me to a petition or signatory list of even 500 saying the opposite ? no you cant and the reason you cant is because its a scam

[davereid]

So let me get this right, taxing people more money will save the world.

Carbon Taxes target the poor.

Food, electricity and transport will all go up. It will be hard on those on fixed and low incomes but it will hurt business much less, if at all, as it will be applied equally to all similar businesses.

For example, if you make cheese, and carbon taxes put up the price of milk, and electricity, you just pass it on to the consumer.

It will just be another input cost - you add up all the input costs, multiply by your profit margin, adjust up or down to match competitor, and job done.

The only threat is that the consumer becomes so poor he gives up cheese. But relative to other producers, your cheese is just the same price.

[Indiana_Jones]

So like where does the money go?

Someone is making a killing here

-Indy

[Tony W]

TV1 7.30pm tonight.

Gareth Morgan on "Global Warming".

Let's have a look to see what he reckons.

[peasea]

I drink my water from the tap!

-Indy
Complete with your daily dose of flouride. Not your choice, the council made that decision for you.

[Skyryder]

You dont have to, he is one in thousands saying the same thing including 31000 scientists you have signed a petition stating global warming is not man made, can you lead me to a petition or signatory list of even 500 saying the opposite ? no you cant and the reason you cant is because its a scam

This petition was started by Fredrick Seitz a respected metallurgist, not a climatologist. This guy was emplyoyed by the Tobacco Industry to dispute the link between tobbaco and cancer. That in itself should give an indication of this man's credibility on subjects that he has little knowledge of.

The petition that you speak of is an up dated version of the 1995 declaration. It stated
The 1995 declaration asserts:

"There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."

The latter statement was broadly accurate at the time, but with additional data and correction of errors, all analyses of satellite temperature measurements now show statistically-significant warming.
According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Fredrick Seitz. The signature list was last updated on July 16 1996 Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".
The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29 1996 he revealed that many signers, including Chauncy Starr, Robert Balling and Patrick Michaels have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.
The petition is an American petition and not supported globally. It would be interesting to know how many of the signatories are registered Republicans have no qualification on in the climate sciences or indeed have authentic degrees.

If this is the sort of info (petition that you quote) that you have got from this book I'd toss it down the dunny, better still recycle it and help save the planet.


Skyryder

[Indiana_Jones]

Complete with your daily dose of flouride. Not your choice, the council made that decision for you.

Tastes like water to me :woohoo:

-Indy

[Hitcher]

Complete with your daily dose of flouride. Not your choice, the council made that decision for you.

Funny that nobody has ever died or had their health compromised from drinking fluoridated tap water.

[Quasievil]

TV1 7.30pm tonight.

Gareth Morgan on "Global Warming".

Let's have a look to see what he reckons.

As I predicted before it started, but what would you expect from an economist with a scientist in his pocket.
1/References where not backed up and factually incorrect and virtualy no data and the data that was used was incorrect
2/Who are the leading scientists?
3/ Some earth saving product endorsements, carbon machine and a new book

to me it read like a advertorial

what a load of crap and shame on TVNZ for presenting a one eyed factually floored presentation on what should be investigative journalism

[Jantar]

This petition was started by Fredrick Seitz a respected metallurgist, not a climatologist. This guy was emplyoyed by the Tobacco Industry to dispute the link between tobbaco and cancer. That in itself should give an indication of this man's credibility on subjects that he has little knowledge of.

The petition that you speak of is an up dated version of the 1995 declaration. It stated ....
Actually, NO!

The declaration talked about is the Manhatton declaration http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

The Chairman was : Professor R. Timothy Patterson, PhD (Canada)
This declaration has absolutely nothing to do with the 1995 petition.

Have a look at the signatures you may even recognise some.

[Tony W]

As I predicted before it started, but what would you expect from an economist with a scientist in his pocket.
1/References where not backed up and factually incorrect and virtualy no data and the data that was used was incorrect
2/Who are the leading scientists?
3/ Some earth saving product endorsements, carbon machine and a new book

to me it read like a advertorial

what a load of crap and shame on TVNZ for presenting a one eyed factually floored presentation on what should be investigative journalism

It did seem rather pro-warming and did not have any opinion from a sceptic.

[peasea]

Funny that nobody has ever died or had their health compromised from drinking fluoridated tap water.

Maybe the flouride made them so compliant that they never complained??

[peasea]

Tastes like water to me :woohoo:

-Indy

Are you sure it's not Teen Spirit?

[MacD]

Having read 'Eve's Bite' and 'Absolute Power' by Ian Wishart I know that he researchs his books well and anything he writes is above reproach. I plan to get Air Con and expect it will be a pretty heavy read but well worth the effort :yes:

Having had personal knowledge of a situation "revealed" in one of his exposes (not ones listed above) I know that his books are sensationalist garbage using highly selective and out of context research! :angry2:

[Hitcher]

The words "Ian Wishart" and "above reproach" do not belong in the same sentence. Sorry. Must try harder.

[Quasievil]

Having had personal knowledge of a situation "revealed" in one of his exposes (not ones listed above) I know that his books are sensationalist garbage using highly selective and out of context research! :angry2:

Okay, then in the matter in hand prove it, what evidence behind your comment do you have available ?

[Edbear]

Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not there is a political "war" being fought around climate change, and the first casualty of any war is truth!

I partly blame the media. They create doco's designed to shock and scare instead of searching for the truth.

I also think that the scientists have a long way to go to actually understand climate change, in relative terms I believe they have only just realised the earth isn't flat.

Actually you're not quite correct, close though. The media is driven by ratings, ie: money, and they use methods to increase their ratings, such a shock and scare and exaggerate and twist... :yes:


So what's causing this.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007311


This is nothing once the oceans start releasing methane.

So, does methane pose a threat today? Let us review the situation. We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to loose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink. This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world's environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event. We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world.


Skyryder

The permafrost in Siberia is now beginning to melt and nothing anyone can do will make a jot of difference to that. Google it, it's interesting reading...

[Quasievil]

The permafrost in Siberia is now beginning to melt and nothing anyone can do will make a jot of difference to that. Google it, it's interesting reading...

Yup it is at about 100 yards a year, thing is tho its not mankind causing this, its a natural cycle of the planet warming cooling warming cooling.
Additionally to that it needs to recognized natural process of melting is encouraging even more Co2 into the atmosphere.

Here is something interesting

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

" the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre industrialised period from 285ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300ppm) as determined from the ice cores"

WRONG what of the increases in C02 in the dinosour era, the IPCC has been very misleading, the impression is from this statement that C02 levels have usually been low on earth but now (OH MY GOD) are tracking dangerously high!! well if dangerous from climbing from 285ppm to 379ppm imagine how hot the earth was in the dinosour period when they where a WHOPPING 7000ppm !!!!!!
well the FACT is the earths temp was a balmy 22 centigrade...........no problems where faced

based on the above how can you link increased C02 ppm in the atmosphere to global warming .....exactly? and why should you pay carbon taxes ???

well like I say its a Scam and we are going to pay for it.

here is some more examples

480 million years ago C02 dropped from 7000ppm to 4000ppm the temperature stayed at 22 c

after that C02 levels rose from 4000 to 4500 very quickly guess what happened the temperatures DROPPED to todays average world temp of 12 c

So much for the global warming theory eh

with Co2 levels at 4500ppm compared to todays 370 ppm the temp is the same as earths is today

And with that ladies and gentlemen the C02 scam is revealed.

[trustme]

I can't cope with all this global warming shit.
I'm still recovering from the Y2K fallout & the dramatic effect it had on my life.
Not.

[MisterD]

The words "Ian Wishart" and "above reproach" do not belong in the same sentence. Sorry. Must try harder.

Hmmm a challenge...

Ian Wishart's credentials as a religious nutbar conspiracy-theorist of the first magnitude are above reproach.

There, how did I do?

[Magua]

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said


Which core was that from?

[Badjelly]

You dont have to, he is one in thousands saying the same thing including 31000 scientists you have signed a petition stating global warming is not man made, can you lead me to a petition or signatory list of even 500 saying the opposite ? no you cant and the reason you cant is because its a scam

"My Internet petition is bigger than your Internet petition"? Fuck me! That's almost as convincing as "It must be true, because a majority voted for it in a Kiwibiker poll."

Look, Quasievil, the number of actual scientists who disagree with the consensus position, that human beings are causing climate change via greenhouse emissions, is small. (They do exist. I know a few. Most of the ones I know would be better described as ex-scientists. The common phrase for this is "going emeritus".) Even fewer have written peer-reviewed papers explaining their disagreement.

Scientists at climate conferences don't debate the existence of human-caused climate change. They don't agonise over the recent wiggles in the global average temperature graph (the cooling since 1998 meme). They refrain from doing these things, not because there's a conspiracy to stop them, but because they consider this stuff completely unproductive. What they do is working on predicting the future trajectory of climate more accurately, getting a better handle on all the forcing factors, improving datasets and time series (there's been a lot of work recently on ocean heat content) and trying to make more precise predictions from models so the models can be tested more stringently.

The statement that there are more scientists who oppose the consensus view than support it is an example of the Big Lie: something so astonishingly untrue that someone, somewhere is bound to believe it.

[Quasievil]

"My Internet petition is bigger than your Internet petition"? Fuck me! That's almost as convincing as "It must be true, because a majority voted for it in a Kiwibiker poll."

Look, Quasievil, the number of actual scientists who disagree with the consensus position, that human beings are causing climate change via greenhouse emissions, is small.

its not actually its a very large number of scientists, but anyway just to clarify my position again, what I am very strongly opposed to is the Taxing which is coming our way very soon, NZrs will be getting a tax amounting to the thousands of dollars a year !
The science is not resolved, the juries are out, I have my opinion others have theirs but are you willing to Pay thousands for it, and if you do pay thousands for it , tell me what difference do you think it will make to the changing cycles of the earths climate.

Lastly it sounds like you have a brain so what do you make of my post above, can you explain it ?

Im here for a quality debate of facts, to help in Quasi's study

[Badjelly]

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

" the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre industrialised period from 285ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300ppm) as determined from the ice cores"

WRONG what of the increases in C02 in the dinosour era, the IPCC has been very misleading, the impression is from this statement that C02 levels have usually been low on earth but now (OH MY GOD) are tracking dangerously high!!...

The impression? The impression? Read what they said! "The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years". And you quote estimates from 600 million years ago to refute this? They said 650,000 years because they meant 650,000 years. Not 600 million years.

Here are some statements that all all climate scientists are taught as part of their basic education

Floating ice does not raise sea level when it melts(*)
The earth's climate has been highly variable over geologic time. It has been much warmer than it is now and much colder than it is now.
CO2 levels vary naturally and have trended down over geological time. In the distant past they were much higher than they are now.


You have cited all these as astonishing FACTS that disprove the current climate consensus. Isn't it a little odd that your show-stopper FACTS are considered by climate scientists to be just ordinary, plain-old well-known, lower-case facts that don't conflict with their theories at all? (I'll have to check, but I think you can find all 3 facts in plain view in the latest IPCC report.)

(*)Actually it does, but only by a tiny amount. It's due to the density difference between fresh and sea water. Or something.

[MisterD]

The statement that there are more scientists who oppose the consensus view that who support is an example of the Big Lie: something so astonishingly untrue that someone, somewhere is bound to believe it.

...and yet, I am still to see any persuasive argument that the rise in global temperature is caused by, not simply correlated with the rise in CO2.

I want to know why as soon as anyone opens their mouth about sun-spot activity links to global temperature the AGW lobby shout "denier" just as a way to shut down the debate..."racist!"..."homophobe!"

Obvious scare-mongering like the famously discredited hockey stick, or 30m sea-level rises mean that the screeching from my bullshit detector tends to drown out any reasonable sensible pro-AGW voices (if there are any?)...

[trustme]

In the 70's oil crisis the expert/scientists told us oil would be finished by the new millenium , no more motor vehicles as we knew it
How are your pushbikes going guys.
Oops, sorry, forgot ,we ride MOTORbikes.

There have been countless other scientific predictions that the sky is falling,I am not convinced

[Badjelly]

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts
In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm)


Which core was that from?

Not an ice core obviously. The oldest ice cores go to ~ 800,000 years ago. These older/longer cores were first analysed 1-2 years ago, beating the previous record of 400,000 years. The longer time series were antiicpated great interest, to see whether the 100,00 year cycle that's dominated the climate since 400,000 years ago also dominated further back. To the best of my recollection it didn't, and I think this was expected. ... Oops sorry, here I am talking about what scientists actually do rather than what they conspiracy nutters think they do.

I don't know what the estimates of older CO2 are based on, but I think they're considered pretty reliable. The Earth 600 million years ago was a very different place.

[Quasievil]

CO2 levels vary naturally and have trended down over geological time. In the distant past they were much higher than they are now.
[/LIST]



So can you then tell me why with Co2 levels in the several thousand ppm how come the temperature didnt rise, and in one era how the C02 level was so high the temperature came down??

remember the argument in the believers vs the sceptics is simply CO2 causes global warming and on this basis we will be paying taxes for it

[Badjelly]

So can you then tell me why with Co2 levels in the several thousand ppm how come the temperature didnt rise, and in one era how the C)2 level was so high the temperature came down??

Like I said, the world was a very different place 600 million years ago. I think there are theories about the balance between the different forcings at the time and I will look them up. But it doesn't have any direct relevance now.


remember the argument in the believers vs the sceptics is simply CO2 causes global warming and on this basis we will be paying taxes for it

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher levels of CO2 will cause (and likely have caused) the Earth to be warmer. At equilibrium, doubling the atmospheres's CO2 concentration will cause the earth to warm by 3 degC, with some uncertainty, say a plausible range of 2 to 4.5 degC. I can quote references to support these statements till the cows come home.

Note I didn't say CO2 is the only factor that causes global-average temperature, nor did I say that changes in global-average temperature don't affect CO2.

[Badjelly]

If you're impressed with Ian Wishart's book, here's a review that might challenge you

http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/

[Swoop]

what a load of crap and shame on TVNZ for presenting a one eyed factually floored presentation on what should be investigative journalism
What else does one expect from the state-funded-propaganda network...
It should be sold off and made to stand on its own merits, instead of paying over-egoed presenters to tout their private agendas.

Im here for a quality debate of facts, to help in Quasi's study
http://iceagenow.com/

[Quasievil]

Like I said, the world was a very different place 600 million years ago. I think there are theories about the balance between the different forcings at the time and I will look them up. But it doesn't have any direct relevance now.



CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher levels of CO2 will cause (and likely have caused) the Earth to be warmer. At equilibrium, doubling the atmospheres's CO2 concentration will cause the earth to warm by 3 degC, with some uncertainty, say a plausible range of 2 to 4.5 degC. I can quote references to support these statements till the cows come home.

Note I didn't say CO2 is the only factor that causes global-average temperature, nor did I say that changes in global-average temperature don't affect CO2.


Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

[Quasievil]

If you're impressed with Ian Wishart's book, here's a review that might challenge you

http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/

Yeah read that, but this is like a religion, those pro those against aint it, therefore no surprise that there are such writings.

Anyway, the non believers arent asking the world for money and power, its not up to the skeptics to prove their case, and the believers are struggling to, that is C02 causes global warming

and why C02 ? cause its easy to tax.....................pure n simple

[Hitcher]

I think that there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the world is warming.

What is not so incontrovertible is whether this is anything other than a "normal" cycle, whether people are contributing to this and, if so, whether it's possible to "undo" this change by doing something differently, and what the magnitude of the impact may be at a macro level.

Climate change aside, reducing carbon emissions makes sense for other reasons, like economics for one.

[Mikkel]

Yup it is at about 100 yards a year, thing is tho its not mankind causing this, its a natural cycle of the planet warming cooling warming cooling.
Additionally to that it needs to recognized natural process of melting is encouraging even more Co2 into the atmosphere.

Here is something interesting

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

" the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre industrialised period from 285ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300ppm) as determined from the ice cores"

WRONG what of the increases in C02 in the dinosour era, the IPCC has been very misleading, the impression is from this statement that C02 levels have usually been low on earth but now (OH MY GOD) are tracking dangerously high!! well if dangerous from climbing from 285ppm to 379ppm imagine how hot the earth was in the dinosour period when they where a WHOPPING 7000ppm !!!!!!
well the FACT is the earths temp was a balmy 22 centigrade...........no problems where faced

based on the above how can you link increased C02 ppm in the atmosphere to global warming .....exactly? and why should you pay carbon taxes ???

well like I say its a Scam and we are going to pay for it.

here is some more examples

480 million years ago C02 dropped from 7000ppm to 4000ppm the temperature stayed at 22 c

after that C02 levels rose from 4000 to 4500 very quickly guess what happened the temperatures DROPPED to todays average world temp of 12 c

So much for the global warming theory eh

with Co2 levels at 4500ppm compared to todays 370 ppm the temp is the same as earths is today

And with that ladies and gentlemen the C02 scam is revealed.

It's CO2 - not Co2 or C02... Consistency is the first pre-requisite in a debate, otherwise we can't be sure what we are talking about.

Your post also contains a lot of glaring logic slips - but I think that was pointed out quite satisfactorily by Badjelly.


Here are some statements that all all climate scientists are taught as part of their basic education

Floating ice does not raise sea level when it melts(*)
The earth's climate has been highly variable over geologic time. It has been much warmer than it is now and much colder than it is now.
CO2 levels vary naturally and have trended down over geological time. In the distant past they were much higher than they are now.


You have cited all these as astonishing FACTS that disprove the current climate consensus. Isn't it a little odd that your show-stopper FACTS are considered by climate scientists to be just ordinary, plain-old well-known, lower-case facts that don't conflict with their theories at all? (I'll have to check, but I think you can find all 3 facts in plain view in the latest IPCC report.)

Shhh, minor detail.


(*)Actually it does, but only by a tiny amount. It's due to the density difference between fresh and sea water. Or something.

That and the fact that the density of water actually changes with temperature in a rather odd way around the solid-liquid phase transition. If it didn't ice would sink and the worlds oceans would long since have frozen from the bottom up...


...and yet, I am still to see any persuasive argument that the rise in global temperature is caused by, not simply correlated with the rise in CO2.

Which is a very good point. And so it would certainly not be a bad idea to thoroughly investigate whether there is a causal link between the two.


Obvious scare-mongering like the famously discredited hockey stick, or 30m sea-level rises mean that the screeching from my bullshit detector tends to drown out any reasonable sensible pro-AGW voices (if there are any?)...

Indeed, the more sensationalistic a prediction is, the more important it is to rigorously apply your "baloney detection kit" - alas not all people have been equipped with one.


Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

Are you sure you even want a discussion of the subject. You seem to have made up your mind already. In fact you even mentioned the term believers in an earlier post. Belief is not good enough here - we need to know.

That is not to say that I don't think the way it is all being handled is correct or even sensible for that matter. But doing something about it, even if it isn't perfect, is infinitely better than doing nothing, covering your ears and going:
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[Quasievil]

I think that there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the world is warming.



Climate change aside, reducing carbon emissions makes sense for other reasons, like economics for one.

No Actually it hasn't warmed in ten years.

And the only reason reducing carbon emissions has a economic impact is due to the factless scam in the first place.

[Edbear]

Hmmm a challenge...

Ian Wishart's credentials as a religious nutbar conspiracy-theorist of the first magnitude are above reproach.

There, how did I do?

Oh, come, come my friend, Ian Wishart is one of the fairest and unbiased journalist's in the whole media industry! He has no agenda... ;)

In fact we can implicitly trust the whole media to be completely fair and honest with no consideration to ratings wars or sensationalism or bias or anything like that! :crazy:

[Quasievil]

Are you sure you even want a discussion of the subject. You seem to have made up your mind already. In fact you even mentioned the term believers in an earlier post. Belief is not good enough here - we need to know.

That is not to say that I don't think the way it is all being handled is correct or even sensible for that matter. But doing something about it, even if it isn't perfect, is infinitely better than doing nothing, covering your ears and going:
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

anyway, yeah I do want a discussion on the subject.

Anthropogenic (my new word means human activity) global warming, and the theory that human Co2 emissions are the main cause of global warming is the only discussion point as it relates to the belief that a TAX is going to stop global warming, and come December we will be paying those taxes ans so again I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.
As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.


p.s I hope you had a nice weekend mate;)

[Badjelly]

Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

That's a pretty definitive statement. I wonder how you could possibly know that.


as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

The Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it has had much higher CO2 levels.

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) was a very dramatic climatic event. (And yes, you're right, there were no SUVs then, so people didn't cause it.) It involved a large rise in CO2 and in methane, another greenhouse gas, thought to have been released from clathrates (methane-ice). The ultimate trigger is not known.

Are you referring to the fact that in the ice-core records, temperature increases are seen to precede CO2 increases by ~ 800 years. This is not the obstacle to the theory of human-caused global warming that you think it is. The fact that temperature affects CO2 does not mean that CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Both can be true, both almost certainly are true, though the question of how global-average temperature feeds back onto CO2 isn't settled. To explain a lag as large as 800 years you probably have to involve changes in the ocean circulation, maybe also the ocean chemistry.

Variations between glacial and interglacial conditions seem to be driven by variations in the Earth's orbit. Ever since this was proposed by a guy named Milankovitch, it's been a big ask to understand how these variations (which don't change the total amount of sunlight received by the earth at all, just its distribution by latitiude and season) could drive such huge changes in the climate. They seem to do it by triggering feedbacks in the greenhouse gases and in the amount of ice (which reflects sunlight). This was proposed by a group of scientists (including the denialists' arch-villian, James Hansen) in a paper in Nature in 1990(*). If this is the case, and given that no-one's thought of a way that the orbital variations can affect CO2 and CH4 directly, then the orbital variations have to affect temperature first and then CO2 & CH4. So it would be a surprise if there weren't a lag.

Recent increases in CO2 have been caused by fossil-fuel emissions. (Yes there are people who'll argue with that, but there are people who'll argue with anything.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiation balance and hence its temperature. The temperature changes may indeed feed back on CO2 and/or CH4 levels, possibly leading to further warming. Er, why would anyone find this reassuring?



(*) Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J.E., Treut, H.L., 1990. The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature 347 (6289), 139-145.

[Mikkel]

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

anyway, yeah I do want a discussion on the subject

Anthropogenic (my new word means human activity) global warming, and the theory that human Co2 emissions are the main cause of global warming is the only discussion point as it relates to the belief that a TAX is going to stop global warming, and come December we will be paying those taxes ans so again I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.
As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.

It's not that I don't see your point about the tax thing. However, there is very real concern amongst leading scientists within the field of climatic studies about what role CO2 emissions play in the jigsaw puzzle that is planet Earth. It may be that it isn't that important, but it could have a catastrophic impact for all we know. It is important that we find out before it is too late. If a tax that forces the general population to restrict their CO2 emissions is put in place (and it works) it may buy us time - unless it is already too late and then it will ultimately not matter.

Earth is an ever-changing system. Thinking we can achieve a status-quo is naive. However, if we learn to understand the system we may be able to nudge it in the direction we want to go instead of steering it towards a state that does not lend itself well to supporting a human society.

As for Aircon - the review that was linked earlier suggests that it is a scientifically unsound publication that uses such tricks as ad hominem arguments, sensationalism and conspiracy theories to push forward the authors agenda. You quite simply have to be critical of it's conclusions. The more sensational a conclusion is, the more solid the underlying evidence has got to be.

If I may suggest something - read "The Demonhaunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan (people must be starting to think I'm getting royalties by now) and then re-read Aircon and you might take something different from it.
Sagan's book has nothing to do with global warming - but it may help you to distinguish between solid and fallacious arguments. And it will most definitely help you to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.


p.s I hope you had a nice weekend mate;)

Thanks. I did. I had somewhere between 8 and 12 hours of flying lessons from an older japanese gentleman in a white shirt and a skirt ;) Needless to say I am a bit sore and tired today. Good stuff though. Hope yours was good too and that if you were riding your motorcycle you are less sore than I today.

[Quasievil]

That's a pretty definitive statement. I wonder how you could possibly know that.



The Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it has had much higher CO2 levels.

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) was a very dramatic climatic event. (And yes, you're right, there were no SUVs then, so people didn't cause it.) It involved a large rise in CO2 and in methane, another greenhouse gas, thought to have been released from clathrates (methane-ice). The ultimate trigger is not known.

Are you referring to the fact that in the ice-core records, temperature increases are seen to precede CO2 increases by ~ 800 years. This is not the obstacle to the theory of human-caused global warming that you think it is. The fact that temperature affects CO2 does not mean that CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Both can be true, both almost certainly are true, though the question of how global-average temperature feeds back onto CO2 isn't settled. To explain a lag as large as 800 years you probably have to involve changes in the ocean circulation, maybe also the ocean chemistry.

Variations between glacial and interglacial conditions seem to be driven by variations in the Earth's orbit. Ever since this was proposed by a guy named Milankovitch, it's been a big ask to understand how these variations (which don't change the total amount of sunlight received by the earth at all, just its distribution by latitiude and season) could drive such huge changes in the climate. They seem to do it by triggering feedbacks in the greenhouse gases and in the amount of ice (which reflects sunlight). This was proposed by a group of scientists (including the denialists' arch-villian, James Hansen) in a paper in Nature in 1990(*). If this is the case, and given that no-one's thought of a way that the orbital variations can affect CO2 and CH4 directly, then the orbital variations have to affect temperature first and then CO2 & CH4. So it would be a surprise if there weren't a lag.

Recent increases in CO2 have been caused by fossil-fuel emissions. (Yes there are people who'll argue with that, but there are people who'll argue with anything.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiation balance and hence its temperature. The temperature changes may indeed feed back on CO2 and/or CH4 levels, possibly leading to further warming. Er, why would anyone find this reassuring?



(*) Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J.E., Treut, H.L., 1990. The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature 347 (6289), 139-145.

Cheers, that was complicated so if I miss the point you made forgive me.

but the info is from
http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/2/182

The manmade carbon level is around 1.7 % the remainder is 98.3% which comes from vegative matter, oceans animals etc, how can taxing 1.7% make a blind piece of difference against a natural process.

Also still can you show me how/ why in the past with levels of C02 being so high like 7000ppm against todays 385 ppm why the planet didnt warm as a consequence and in one case actually cooled with a increase in ppm of C02?
to me this completely fails the argument and any basis for the Kyoto cap in hand and the Copenhagen taxing agendas

[Badjelly]

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

I'm putting a bit of work into it myself! :D


I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.

You want instances in geologic times where CO2 has directly caused global warming? (What do you mean by "directly" Acting on its own?) You're not going to get this because:

In the past CO2 has been controlled by ocean chemistry and such like and changes in CO2 have never occurred on their own
When scientists examine the evidence & conclude that greenhouse gases played a major part in the glacial/interglacial cycles, or the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, you don't believe them.

The only way you could observe CO2 directly causing global warming is to raise atmospheric CO2 levels for a century or 2--say by digging up huge amounts of fossil fuels and burning them--then study the effects. Cool experiment, eh? I'll write a research proposal tomorrow.


As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

If CO2 is high at a steady level, then (all else being equal) the global average temperature will also be high at a steady level. Not warming rapidly. And it may well cool if CO2 levels drop or some other forcing comes along.


Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.

The world is a very different place now from what it was when CO2 was at 4000 ppm. How it was then is irrelevant to us now considering the effects of raising CO2 to 450 ppm, or whatever.

The planet is not about to collapse. Life is robust and will go on.

[Mikkel]

The manmade carbon level is around 1.7 % the remainder is 98.3% which comes from vegative matter, oceans animals etc, how can taxing 1.7% make a blind piece of difference against a natural process.

The only way vegetation produces CO2 is if you burn it. (Be it old stuff as in oil or new stuff as in forest fires). The rest of the time all the plants are actually absorbing CO2 and releasing O2 as part of the photosynthetic process.


Also still can you show me how/ why in the past with levels of C02 being so high like 7000ppm against todays 385 ppm why the planet didnt warm as a consequence and in one case actually cooled with a increase in ppm of C02?

There are other factors that may impact global temperature. E.g. dust released into the atmosphere from big vulcanic erruptions or metorite impacts.
It is to be expected that there used to be much higher CO2 levels - afterall a lot of CO2 has been absorbed by organic matter over the aeons and then buried underground. In fact - that is very all our oil is coming from. Burning that oil releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
In pre-historic times there have been periods where the oxygen level was much higher than today - fossils of dragonflies over 50 cm confirms this (insects absorb their oxygen through their skin so their maximum size is tied closely to the oxygen level). And there have also been periods with higher temperatures - neither was Antarctica always covered in ice.

[Mikkel]

The only way you could observe CO2 directly causing global warming is to raise atmospheric CO2 levels for a century or 2--say by digging up huge amounts of fossil fuels and burning them--then study the effects. Cool experiment, eh? I'll write a research proposal tomorrow.

Don't bother a guy called James polished off the rough draft left behind by Thomas a long time ago.
The experiment is coming along nicely and everybody on this forum are doing all they can to help.
Of course there's always some nasty nasty people with big horn-rimmed glasses in floral shirts who want's to stop the party.

[Swoop]

...............

[Badjelly]

Cheers, that was complicated so if I miss the point you made forgive me.

but the info is from
http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/2/182

The manmade carbon level is around 1.7 % the remainder is 98.3% which comes from vegative matter, oceans animals etc, how can taxing 1.7% make a blind piece of difference against a natural process.

Whew, that's heavy stuff! So these guys have established that CO2 has been controlled over geologic time by a shitload of stuff including rock weathering and plant types, etc.

But then, they didn't have SUVs then, did they (as the sceptics like to say)? There is plenty of evidence that the recent increase is human-driven. (Yes, I know I keep saying that, and I will back it up, if someone really wants me to.) The existence of other processes controlling CO2 on geologic time scales doesn't contradict that at all.

I assume you don't browse American Journal of Science abstracts for fun (neither do I) and that you got that reference from someone else, presumably Mr Wishart, who probably doesn't browse AJS abstracts for fun either, so he probably got it from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere feels this is inconsistent with the theory of AGW (*). I certainly don't. I'm idly curious as to what Drs Berner and Kothavala think.


Isn't Google great:

(*) http://www.friesian.com/crichton.htm

I'll have a read of it.

[Quasievil]

Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

[Badjelly]

Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

Stubborn bugger, aren't you?

Humans account for all the recent rise in CO2 and then some (the fraction that's gone into the oceans).

Your requirement for clear and concise science could be satisfied how, exactly? You've been talking about evidence from the geologic record. The geologic record never gives clear evidence about cause and effect. Correlation is not causation, as they say.

And why should the science be concise? Reality is not concise.

The taxes and costs are a different subject.

[Mikkel]

Whew, that's heavy stuff! So these guys have established that CO2 has been controlled over geologic time by a shitload of stuff including rock weathering and plant types, etc.

The abstract would be to condensed for anyone outside the field to really understand I'd say. If anyone wants to read the whole article -23 pages - flick me a PM and I'll get you a copy. I am sure posting the PDF-file on a public forum is a breach of the university's user license.


Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

If the fact that you have to pay $3000 to maintain your current contribution to CO2 emissions means you are likely to reduce your emissions it works as intended. If I have any skepticism it's that the money won't go towards climatic research. Anyway, it's justification is to try and limit the CO2 emissions until we have a better understanding of what is going on. As it is, emissions are currently going up and not only are the emissions increasing, the rate of the increase is climbing too.

Everybody has got an agenda - your's is that you don't want to pay $3000 for something you don't understand and where you feel you won't see a return. May I ask how much you pay in taxes every year?

[Quasievil]

Stubborn bugger, aren't you?

Humans account for all the recent rise in CO2 and then some (the fraction that's gone into the oceans).

Your requirement for clear and concise science could be satisfied how, exactly? You've been talking about evidence from the geologic record. The geologic record never gives clear evidence about cause and effect. Correlation is not causation, as they say.

And why should the science be concise? Reality is not concise.

The taxes and costs are a different subject.

Well yeah I am really but I am genuine with my interest in this subject.

My requirement for clear and concise science will make it easier for me to pay the incoming taxes, I cant find any yet.

Guys, Apparently "Co2 increases are causing global warming".................thats the argument presented to us by the ones that will be asking for yours and my money, thats it nothing else, nothing less,and thats the reason we are going to have to pay cash over to the government and Carbon traders after they sign the Copenhagen treaty (assuming they do)

But since 1998 Co2 has been rising and the global temperatures have been DECLINING!!!

The above is a fact not a Quasi spin, so how many more years of decline is needed before this whole "global warming caused by human Co2" crap is over ??? One, five how about 15 ???

To me its simple sorry

[Quasievil]

If the fact that you have to pay $3000 to maintain your current contribution to CO2 emissions means you are likely to reduce your emissions it works as intended. If I have any skepticism it's that the money won't go towards climatic research. Anyway, it's justification is to try and limit the CO2 emissions until we have a better understanding of what is going on. As it is, emissions are currently going up and not only are the emissions increasing, the rate of the increase is climbing too.


So the scientist dont know whats going on but we better be taxed anyway just in case ??? common lol

[Skyryder]

Actually, NO!

The declaration talked about is the Manhatton declaration http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

The Chairman was : Professor R. Timothy Patterson, PhD (Canada)
This declaration has absolutely nothing to do with the 1995 petition.

Have a look at the signatures you may even recognise some.

Quasi stated a 'petition' and not a declaration. OK not much difference. He stated a figure of 31000. The petition that I believed he was talking about is this one
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php that has a current 31,478. Pretty close.
Quosi also has mentioned both the Copenhagen and Kyoto summits, where the ‘petition’ that I posted has some connections. In light of the information that Quasi posted I do not think that it is unreasonable to believe that this was the petition that he was referring to.

You claim that this is incorrect and that it is the Manhattan Declaration. OK

This was sponsored by the Heartland Institute an American, Libertarian Free market think-tank and you seriously expect me to believe that these guys are independent and have independent views on climate change. Either way both petitions or declarations are suspect. One on a political basis and the other on credibility of the signatories who attended a climate change summit paid/sponsored for by a Free market think tank.


Skyryder

[Drunken Monkey]

Pro / Anti anthro global warming aside, does anyone else think the carbon/emission trading scheme reeks slightly of Enron's energy trading in California or their even dodgier failed Bandwidth trading schemes?

[Skyryder]

Pro / Anti anthro global warming aside, does anyone else think the carbon/emission trading scheme reeks slightly of Enron's energy trading in California or their even dodgier failed Bandwidth trading schemes?

Enron is what happens when you give the markets exclusive control and the privatisation of utliities. I don't know enought about carbon trading but with any kind of free market trading scams are always on the cards. I have no reason to think otherwise with Carbon trading


Skyryder

[Mikkel]

So the scientist dont know whats going on but we better be taxed anyway just in case ??? common lol

Funnily enough you seem to use the argument, that a group of scientists (the specialty of which we don't know btw) has signed an online petition, as an argument that the whole deal is a conspiracy designed just to rob you of $3000 a year...

You must be familiar with - and appreciate - the concept of "better safe than sorry" - otherwise you wouldn't be selling motorcycle safety gear. Now apply the same reasoning to a system so complex that even the experts has not come to an agreement of how it works. Here are some facts you can not dispute:

-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
-We are burning fossil fuels at the rate of approximately 1 million years production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels#Origin) per year. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere that has been bound within the Earth's crust for million of years.

In light of those two facts, wouldn't you agree it would be nice to at least have an idea of what the potential consequences of our actions might be?

[Jantar]

....-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures......
Absolutely correct. The correlation is undeniable and obvious to anyone who cares to graph the two. The only (very small) matters to consider are:
Why is it that changes in temperature lead changes in CO2 concentration? Do we really see the effect happening before the cause?
Does the CO2 greenhouse effect break the laws of thermodynamics?
Is this the secret to developing time travel?

[Mikkel]

Why is it that changes in temperature lead changes in CO2 concentration? Do we really see the effect happening before the cause?

At least in some cases temperature rises lead the CO2 concentration, yes. But, is it always the case?

As said, a correlation - the causal link is more elusive and most likely vastly more complicated. It would be an advantage to know...
Another thing that hasn't even been mentioned - inertia. A planet-sized system does not just change overnight. It is not unthinkable that by the time real change is observable it would already have been under way for years.


Does the CO2 greenhouse effect break the laws of thermodynamics?
Is this the secret to developing time travel?

I don't know - but I have a feeling that there would be some distinguished physicists who would turn in their graves if it was ever to be the case. :yes:

[Badjelly]

...

But since 1998 Co2 has been rising and the global temperatures have been DECLINING!!!

The above is a fact not a Quasi spin, so how many more years of decline is needed before this whole "global warming caused by human Co2" crap is over ??? One, five how about 15 ???

Here's a link to a graph of one of the instrumental temperature data sets:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The highest value in this dataset is in 2005 and the next-highest is in 1998. (In some other datasets, 2005 is a little lower than 1998.) The red trend line is the running 5-year mean. The last year, 2008, is below the trend line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, though if you choose your range of years carefully you can draw a trend line through the recent data that slopes downwards. (Hint: make sure you start the trend calculation in 1998 or 2001, not in 1999 or 2000.) But if you look at the rest of the graph you'll see there are lots of wiggles, with individual years above or below the red line by up to 0.1 degC, sometimes by 0.15 degC. Even in the last few decades, which have shown a pretty consistent warming trend, there have been several periods of a few years each in which temperatures dropped.

In the presence of this short-term variability, you can't conclude anything much by looking at short segments of the data. How long would the data have to show a lack of warming before we could conclude the models that predict warming are wrong? Good question. I'd be pretty surprised if any given decade wasn't warmer than the last. I've seen some more careful analyses of this question, but can't track them down right now.

[Quasievil]

Funnily enough you seem to use the argument, that a group of scientists (the specialty of which we don't know btw) has signed an online petition, as an argument that the whole deal is a conspiracy designed just to rob you of $3000 a year...

You must be familiar with - and appreciate - the concept of "better safe than sorry" - otherwise you wouldn't be selling motorcycle safety gear. Now apply the same reasoning to a system so complex that even the experts has not come to an agreement of how it works. Here are some facts you can not dispute:

-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
-We are burning fossil fuels at the rate of approximately 1 million years production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels#Origin) per year. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere that has been bound within the Earth's crust for million of years.

In light of those two facts, wouldn't you agree it would be nice to at least have an idea of what the potential consequences of our actions might be?

I haven't used the petition as the basis for my sole argument at all my good man, I have used loads of stats and figures aka FACTS to back up my argument, not alot from your side tho (just quietly)

yes there maybe a link between C02 and temperatures however not the convieniant one the global warming scare mongers want.

Yes we burn fossil fuels and contribute a pathetic 1.7 % of the total C02 emissions in doing so, again not a figure convieniant to the pro cause.

The potential consequences??????

Common Mikkel mate, read above why do we need to pay taxes against a belief that the climate is getting warmer due to Co2 emissions when infact its not true. The climate is getting cooler (fractionallyand Co2 is getting higher (fractionally)

The global warming debate and the Co2 scaring is fundamentally floored, shit if I can pick it up in a week how come you cant bro ? you ride a motard ffs so you must have some intelligence in there (said in gest lol)

[Mikkel]

I haven't used the petition as the basis for my sole argument at all my good man, I have used loads of stats and figures aka FACTS to back up my argument, not alot from your side tho (just quietly)

See, that is where you go wrong. Statistics are not facts - statistics can be used to illustrate how well we know something (i.e. confidence and uncertainty). Seriously, I see no point in wasting my time digging out references to support the points I have been making above, they are my opinions and that is all. I am not quoting any figures or claiming one thing or the other - not anything that requires a reference anyway.

I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.

Consider what I have read as a presentation of an alternative perspective upon the matter and as an encouragement to engage in critical assesment of both those sources that support and those that challenge the belief that you would like to be true (namely that there is no good reason why you should pay $3000 in tax - it's always about the bloody money isn't it?).


yes there maybe a link between C02 and temperatures however not the convieniant one the global warming scare mongers want.

Yes we burn fossil fuels and contribute a pathetic 1.7 % of the total C02 emissions in doing so, again not a figure convieniant to the pro cause.

I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.


Common Mikkel mate, read above why do we need to pay taxes against a belief that the climate is getting warmer due to Co2 emissions when infact its not true. The climate is getting cooler (fractionallyand Co2 is getting higher (fractionally)

Again, you are just going "LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And I am not saying we have to pay taxes. But if you are going to pay your income tax without questioning how it is being used, why make a bloody fuzz about CO2 tax? At least the tax rate is more reasonable down here than some other places I could care to mention.


The global warming debate and the Co2 scaring is fundamentally floored, shit if I can pick it up in a week how come you cant bro ? you ride a motard ffs so you must have some intelligence in there (said in gest lol)

I am absolutely confident that I would not be able bring myself up-to-date with the entire field of climatic research in a week, even if I spent 8 hours a day on it - and with all due respect I very much doubt you would too. Give me half a year and then maybe I'd have a decent overview.
And that is my point - you interest has been piqued, now abandon the arrogance of thinking that just because you have read a book (of questionable integrity by all accounts) you are now an expert upon the subject. You're not the first one to fall into this trap - not to mention any names but if you want to see how far such folly can be taken go read some of the stuff in religious ravings.
Read the book I suggested, and come back and tell me if you still hold the same opinion as you do now, please.

And I don't so much ride a motard as I crash it... so much for intelligence ;)

[Badjelly]

Yes we burn fossil fuels and contribute a pathetic 1.7 % of the total C02 emissions in doing so, again not a figure convieniant to the pro cause.

One of the fun things about debating with climate change deniers is working out where they get their "facts" from. There are WWW sites devoted to categorising these facts, their origin, their modes of transmission and their transformations on the way. (For some light amusement, type "bellamy 555" into Google and click on the 3rd link (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-bellamy-wrong-climate-change-science) to read the story of how one of these facts came to be. Hint: "55%" becomes "555" if you forget to press the shift key.)

So where does your "1.7 % of the total C02 emissions" come from? IIRC you first mentioned it immediately after citing the AJS paper on Palaeozoic carbon levels, but it's not from there, is it? Is it?

[Quasievil]

See, that is where you go wrong. Statistics are not facts - statistics can be used to illustrate how well we know something (i.e. confidence and uncertainty). Seriously, I see no point in wasting my time digging out references to support the points I have been making above, they are my opinions and that is all. I am not quoting any figures or claiming one thing or the other - not anything that requires a reference anyway.

I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.

Consider what I have read as a presentation of an alternative perspective upon the matter and as an encouragement to engage in critical assesment of both those sources that support and those that challenge the belief that you would like to be true (namely that there is no good reason why you should pay $3000 in tax - it's always about the bloody money isn't it?).



I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.



Again, you are just going "LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And I am not saying we have to pay taxes. But if you are going to pay your income tax without questioning how it is being used, why make a bloody fuzz about CO2 tax? At least the tax rate is more reasonable down here than some other places I could care to mention.



I am absolutely confident that I would not be able bring myself up-to-date with the entire field of climatic research in a week, even if I spent 8 hours a day on it - and with all due respect I very much doubt you would too. Give me half a year and then maybe I'd have a decent overview.
And that is my point - you interest has been piqued, now abandon the arrogance of thinking that just because you have read a book (of questionable integrity by all accounts) you are now an expert upon the subject. You're not the first one to fall into this trap - not to mention any names but if you want to see how far such folly can be taken go read some of the stuff in religious ravings.
Read the book I suggested, and come back and tell me if you still hold the same opinion as you do now, please.

And I don't so much ride a motard as I crash it... so much for intelligence ;)

cheers bro.........Im still readin it and it may take a while but Im looking at the other side to trust me.
I still cant find a fact that blows the AIRCON statements outta da water tho.

Im not the smartest dude for sure but I aint a dummy and when governments collectively get together to get money off the masses Im one suspicious muther fucker.

I know one thing is this world to be true in nearly every case and it is this

IF YOU WANT TO FIND THE TRUTH, FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

If there is big money involved and you get a scent of a rat there will be one, there is only one side wanting our money and I want them to factually explain why they should get it, to date their case of Co2 and human global warming being linked, is simply just not convincing enough.
And money dont fix that anyway

[Quasievil]

One of the fun things about debating with climate change deniers is working out where they get their "facts" from. There are WWW sites devoted to categorising these facts, their origin, their modes of transmission and their transformations on the way. (For some light amusement, type "bellamy 555" into Google and click on the 3rd link (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-bellamy-wrong-climate-change-science) to read the story of how one of these facts came to be. Hint: "55%" becomes "555" if you forget to press the shift key.)

So where does your "1.7 % of the total C02 emissions" come from? IIRC you first mentioned it immediately after citing the AJS paper on Palaeozoic carbon levels, but it's not from there, is it? Is it?


Thats easy UN IPCC, the UN's intergovernmental panel on CLimate Change, the actual figure is 3.4% but only 1.7% gets into the atmosphere the rest is absorbed by plants etc.

Common, come to the light side luke, leave the dark side...........common you know you want to !!

Will type bellamy 555 soon, I know though that david bellamy is on the skeptics side like me

[Quasievil]

Okay clicked the link and stopped reading at this comment

If Bellamy has indeed written off the entire scientific community, where is he getting his information to back up his remarkable claims that carbon emissions are not driving climate change?

the arrogance of it all, "the entire scientific community" hardly so that article is a waste of space


okay okay I will go back and read it ...............in the name of science of course

[Badjelly]

I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.

That's the trap the deniers are setting. They come out with a whole bunch of spurious arguments, everyone argues for a while, then the politicians and media say, "We don't really understand the arguments, but the truth must lie somewhere in between."

As far as I'm concerned, the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp use much more idiotic arguments than the scaremongers, and the real truth may be found somewhere in between the extremes, but closer, I suspect, to the scaremongers.

Mind you the things that happened in that film, The Day After Tomorrow, are completely unrealistic, but that's only fiction.

[Quasievil]

As far as I'm concerned, the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp use much more idiotic arguments than the scaremongers


And yet none of my arguments have been refuted
And note also that the Non-Believers dont actually have to prove anything, we aren't asking the world for their money and power, you believers need to explain your case.


So erm again, what evidence is there that more C02 forces the temperature up further ?

[Badjelly]

the arrogance of it all, "the entire scientific community" hardly so that article is a waste of space

Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but people like Bellamy have pretty much written off the entire scientific community. As have you, to judge from your earlier comments. One thing people find hard to believe is just how little attention scientists actually working on climate pay to people like Bellamy, because they never put their arguments into the form of scientific papers which can be examined and debated. If that's arrogant, sorry, but in science you can't rely on bluster you have to actually write your ideas down and be prepared to defend them and admit it when you make a mistake. Judging by the 55%/555 blunder, Bellamy isn't prepared to do anything of these things.

[Jantar]

...
I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.
....

That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job. :yes:

[Badjelly]

So erm again, what evidence is there that more CO2 forces the temperature up further?

A fair question. I've been too busy responding to various "facts" that you've put up to deal with stuff like that. I'll see what I can do.

Edit: sorry, i failed to notice this one


And yet none of my arguments have been refuted

That's funny, I thought I'd refuted all your arguments. :-)

[Jantar]

So erm again, what evidence is there that more C02 forces the temperature up further ?


A fair question. I've been too busy responding to various "facts" that you've put up to deal with stuff like that. I'll see what I can do.

There is no question that CO2 does force temperature, that is a known relationship where the temperature forcing is directly corelated to the log of the CO2 concentration. This means that 10 times the CO2 concentration will cause a doubling of the temperature forcing. (I'll check back through my notes to get the exact formula if anyone wants it.)

We must not lose sight of the fact that our planet depends on the greenhouse effect to remain habitable. Without greenhouse gasses forcing the temperature the natural average temperature of Earth would be around -15C instead of +15C that we enjoy. CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas, but it does punch above its weight in terms of concentration. The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.

[Mikkel]

cheers bro.........Im still readin it and it may take a while but Im looking at the other side to trust me.
I still cant find a fact that blows the AIRCON statements outta da water tho.

It wasn't a link - I was talking about the book I recommended a couple of pages back. Unless you had it standing on your bookshelf already I doubt you'd been able to get a copy so quickly. Fastest way to get it is here (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241412361&sr=8-1) I think.

You could try your local bookstore, but I'd recommend calling them in advance before heading in.

And as I said, that particular book does not concern itself with climate changes - but I am fairly certain that if you read it you'll see Aircon in a different light.


That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job. :yes:

That comment was directed at Quasievil. I wouldn't assume that there was no-one here who didn't work with climatic research one way or the other.

[Badjelly]

That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job. :yes:

So you'll understand why the "temperature leads CO2" issue is a red herring?

[Badjelly]

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Indeed it is, but the water vapour is continually evaporated and rained out, so its concentration is controlled by those processes. And it seems to be true--though it's not a fundamental law of nature or anything--that as (say) the temperature increases, the water vapour concentration also increases so as to hold the relative humidity more or less constant. (This is a prediction of the global climate models and there is data that suggests it's held true during the warming of the recent decades.) So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.

[Jantar]

So you'll understand why the "temperature leads CO2" issue is a red herring?
No, it isn't a red herring at all. The world's largest carbon sink is the ocean. CO2 becomes more soluable in water as the water temperature decrease, and less soluable as the temperature increases. Because of inertia (already mentioned a few pages back) it takes centuries for atmospheric temperature change to filter down to the ocean depths and release or absorb CO2. So a rising global temperature, like we have seen since the last mini ice age 200 years ago is only now starting to show up as increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for hundreds of years after the global temperature starts to fall again.

There is a slight positive feedback, as I already mentioned in a previous post, where CO2 concentrations do assist with driving the temperature. Just as well too, or else the earths temperature would flipflop so violently that we would only ever see extremes of weather.

[Jantar]

...So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.
True. It also provides a negative feedback. As water vapour concentrations increase more water vapour condenses into cloud, and some even freezes to ice crystals to form the various alto clouds (eg alto stratus). These act as a mirror to incoming solar radiation and decrease the radiative effect.

[Quasievil]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

[Mikkel]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

Easy.

By burning fossil fuels you heat the global climate - directly. Never mind whether the CO2 does anything or not.

Now, had you said - "My argument is Mankind is Not solely responsible for global warming" - we couldn't possibly argue with it.

[Badjelly]

No, it isn't a red herring at all. The world's largest carbon sink is the ocean. CO2 becomes more soluable in water as the water temperature decrease, and less soluable as the temperature increases. Because of inertia (already mentioned a few pages back) it takes centuries for atmospheric temperature change to filter down to the ocean depths and release or absorb CO2. So a rising global temperature, like we have seen since the last mini ice age 200 years ago is only now starting to show up as increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for hundreds of years after the global temperature starts to fall again.

Does your theory have anything to say about the C13/C12 isotope ratio? The C13/C12 isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2 has been decreasing since about the time fossil fuel burning began (from tree ring and ice core data) and is still decreasing. This is consistent with a fossil fuel source and not (I think) consistent with an ocean source. See

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

which cites a few papers that I'll look up when I get a chance.

Or in other words (see comments at the above link):


a) CO2 began to rise when we starting producing it in earnest, b) its isotopic signature demonstrates it comes predominantly from fossil fuels, and c) such an increase has not happened in at least 800,000 years as far as we can tell.

Furthermore I believe the oceanic inorganic carbon data is good enough these days to show that the amount is increasing (consistent with absorption from the atmosphere) rather than decreasing.

[Badjelly]

...So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.


True. It also provides a negative feedback. As water vapour concentrations increase more water vapour condenses into cloud, and some even freezes to ice crystals to form the various alto clouds (eg alto stratus). These act as a mirror to incoming solar radiation and decrease the radiative effect.

If the rise in water vapour occurs because the temperature is rising, then it doesn't necessarily cause more clouds to form. It's a rise in absolute humidity but not in relative humidity. Cloud feedbacks might exist, in fact they probably do exist, but they could go either way.

[Badjelly]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

Yeah, but why do you think our emissions account for 1.7%? And 1.7% of what?

Oh, and sorry for making it complicated, but reality does not have any obligation to make itself simple for your benefit.

[Quasievil]

Yeah, but why do you think our emissions account for 1.7%? And 1.7% of what?

Oh, and sorry for making it complicated, but reality does not have any obligation to make itself simple for your benefit.

Because thats the figure I can quote from my reading, and its 1.7% of total Co2 emissions released into the atmosphere come from man, the remainder comes from natural sources.

your last comment surely doesnt imply that Im simple.

And still no one has or can refute my statement.

[Quasievil]

Easy.



Now, had you said - "My argument is Mankind is Not solely responsible for global warming" - we couldn't possibly argue with it.

Its getting cooler, there is no warming

[MisterD]

but people like Bellamy have pretty much written off the entire scientific community.

The crucial thing to consider about Bellamy is that he is probably the only person on either side of the debate who is honest about their motivation for speaking out. He passionately believes that the whole AGW thing is distracting us from far more urgent matters on the environmental front - the collapse of fish populations, polluted air, polluted rivers, deforestation...you name it.

[Mully]

The crucial thing to consider about Bellamy is that he is probably the only person on either side of the debate who is honest about their motivation for speaking out. He passionately believes that the whole AGW thing is distracting us from far more urgent matters on the environmental front - the collapse of fish populations, polluted air, polluted rivers, deforestation...you name it.

See, this is the point that I see.

Regardless of man's contribution to Global Warming, living somewhere polluted is not pleasant. If cutting down on fossil fuel use with reduce smog, etc, then surely that's a good thing?

Plus it might take cars off the roads, freeing them up for bikes.

[Ocean1]

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.


If the rise in water vapour occurs because the temperature is rising, then it doesn't necessarily cause more clouds to form.

Back up a tad, gentlemen, if you please.

The source of almost all of the heat energy driving our weather is?

The largest factor in the Earth's albedo is?

Which, as a greenhouse gas is how many orders of magnitude more effective than CO2?

And the largest causal factor in cloud cover is?

[Trouser]

Oh oh.

Is it the...................SUN?

[Mikkel]

Back up a tad, gentlemen, if you please.

The source of almost all of the heat energy driving our weather is?

The largest factor in the Earth's albedo is?

Which, as a greenhouse gas is how many orders of magnitude more effective than CO2?

And the largest causal factor in cloud cover is?

Good points. The answers are of course:

1. The sun.
2. Clouds, snow and ice - i.e. precipitation in a word (potential and water in solid form lying on the ground).
3. Water - but also methane...
4. Temperature.

Yes, the system is self-regulating. If it hadn't been the Earth wouldn't have reached a habitable equilibrium and we'd be looking at something either like Venus or Europa (the moon, not the "continent").

Another point to note is that the radiative heat-loss during the night depends quite a lot upon cloud cover...

[Winston001]

Good discussion lads, I've been here before and think Mikkel et al are doing a good job answering the skeptic/conspiracy theorists. :2thumbsup: So I'm going to continue packing for the Cold Duck.

One point however - these arguments miss a rather crucial matter - impact on the biosphere. Even if releasing billions of tonnes of carbon annually, plus lead, zinc, copper etc doesn't affect the climate, it sure as hell affects the micro biota under your feet. And in the sea. If you want any chance of your grandchildren living on this planet, you'll reflect upon the entire food-chain - and how we are systematically poisoning it.

Two (of many) indicators - bee deaths, and ocean acidification.

[Tony W]

Global cooling in the '70s ?

The ozone hole in the '80s ?

Global warming in the '90s

Climate change, currently.

What's next ?

[jonbuoy]

Hell you can see the effects of burning fossil fuels looking over the yellow smog on Aucklands skyline on a sunny morning.

[Jantar]

One point however - these arguments miss a rather crucial matter - impact on the biosphere. Even if releasing billions of tonnes of carbon annually, plus lead, zinc, copper etc doesn't affect the climate, it sure as hell affects the micro biota under your feet. And in the sea. If you want any chance of your grandchildren living on this planet, you'll reflect upon the entire food-chain - and how we are systematically poisoning it.

Two (of many) indicators - bee deaths, and ocean acidification.

And in this part I am in full agreement. I too would like to see a drastic decrease in pollution, and Winston has hit the reason bang on. I just wish more people who are anti pollution would say so and give this as a reason instead of making the "global warming" claim

[Quasievil]

I am now actually convinced you lot cant read.

the whole Carbon tax that is about to hit your pockets is based on the so called science that man made Co2 emissions are causing global warming (did you read that)

well it isnt, and there is no global warming as its getting cooler.and man made emissions count for only 1.7% of Co2 in the atmosphere.

I can write it any more simply than that, none of you have dispelled that simple bolded and underlined headline, so yup keep your head in the sand and expect a $3000 plus bill in your letter box next year, enjoy it knowing that your tax will make absolutely ZERO difference to the climate.

so where is the argument that should enable to big crooks to get your money ABSOLUTELY without question from practically any of you ?

bloody sheep:whistle:

[Winston001]

I am now actually convinced you lot cant read.

the whole Carbon tax that is about to hit your pockets is based on the so called science that man made Co2 emissions are causing global warming (did you read that)

well it isnt, and there is no global warming as its getting cooler.and man made emissions count for only 1.7% of Co2 in the atmosphere.

I can write it any more simply than that, none of you have dispelled that simple bolded and underlined headline, so yup keep your head in the sand and expect a $3000 plus bill in your letter box next year, enjoy it knowing that your tax will make absolutely ZERO difference to the climate.


I know you are sincere and feel frustrated - but sadly you are mistaken. Carbon trading is simply a method for conservation and environmental protection. It is a gross and inaccurate measure but it is also easy to work with. If you and I are persuaded by cost to reduce our carbon footprint, then the result is we reduce polluting the environment.

Personally I don't think our ETS scheme is any good, and that its all too late anyway. Plus selling a carbon credit which a polluter can buy so they can burn more stuff just doesn't seem very logical.

So I reckon head for high ground, near the coast to get rainfall, and buy land with rich soil. Hunker down and your grandkids will thank you. ;)

[Quasievil]

I know you are sincere and feel frustrated - but sadly you are mistaken. Carbon trading is simply a method for conservation and environmental protection. It is a gross and inaccurate measure but it is also easy to work with. If you and I are persuaded by cost to reduce our carbon footprint, then the result is we reduce polluting the environment.

Personally I don't think our ETS scheme is any good, and that its all too late anyway. Plus selling a carbon credit which a polluter can buy so they can burn more stuff just doesn't seem very logical.

So I reckon head for high ground, near the coast to get rainfall, and buy land with rich soil. Hunker down and your grandkids will thank you. ;)


:eek5:Like I said above

[Badjelly]

your last comment surely doesnt imply that Im simple.

It surely wasn't intended to. You said somewhere that I was making things complicated. I was replying that things are complicated.

[Badjelly]

man made emissions count for only 1.7% of Co2 in the atmosphere.

The rise in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or two is wholly caused by human activities: burning of fossil fuels plus maybe a bit of deforestation. The reasons we know this were given by me in a reply to Jantar a few posts back.

I don't know where you got your 1.7% from, and you won't tell me, but its either wrong or irrelevant (probably the latter, I suspect).

[Hitcher]

Carbon trading is a wealth tax. It has been promulgated by a "green" agenda to stop people in developed economies having fun and enjoying life. Like all taxes it can and will be subverted, requiring an enormous and costly compliance infrastructure.

And there is no need for it. If carbon fuels are indeed a scarce commodity, then good old market forces will drive the processes required to conserve and ensure their wise use.

[jonbuoy]

Sorry Quasi you lost me, one book and a petition?? Its not like governments can get global warming to change its mind with a petition. Organisations like NOAA don´t bandy figures about if they aren´t sure. The NOAA website is well worth a visit if you are interested in the subject. They collect data from weather buoys, ships, sattelites deep sea bathys and have a staggering amount of raw data to work with.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarming2.php

Cut and paste from NOAA:

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

[Badjelly]

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.


If the rise in water vapour occurs because the temperature is rising, then it doesn't necessarily cause more clouds to form. It's a rise in absolute humidity but not in relative humidity. Cloud feedbacks might exist, in fact they probably do exist, but they could go either way.


Back up a tad, gentlemen, if you please.

If you back up and re-read the exchange you'll see that I'm not denying water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, I'm not denying that it affects clouds and I'm not denying that clouds are very important radiatively.

All I'm saying is that if a rise in average temperature of the atmosphere causes a rise in water vapour concentration (AKA absolute humidity), such that the relative humidity stays the same then the cloud cover will not necessarily increase. 'Cos it's the relative humidity not the absolute humidity that determines how close the air is to saturation.

[Badjelly]

So erm again, what evidence is there that more C02 forces the temperature up further ?


A fair question. I've been too busy responding to various "facts" that you've put up to deal with stuff like that. I'll see what I can do.

Here we go:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

[Quasievil]

Here we go:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

mmmm a nice mathematical calculation that unfortunetly doesnt correlate to well with actual fact of history

historically then how do you account for 4500 ppm of Co2 and a 12 c temperature (as it is today 12c roughly and current Co2 is 385ppm)

And yet right now the Co2 is going up yet the temperature is going down.................sorry but next

[Jantar]

The rise in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or two is wholly caused by human activities: burning of fossil fuels plus maybe a bit of deforestation. The reasons we know this were given by me in a reply to Jantar a few posts back......

I am still researching the link you gave for that claim. many of the papers refered to are not available on line, and the some of the ones that are have already been withdrawn or surpassed. So far I have not been able to locate any of the data that this claim mis based on, and with data no claim can ever be verified. This is the same reason that Mann's hockey stick is now recognised as false and is no longer used by the IPCC.

[Quasievil]

Also how do the Global warming scare mongers propose to deal with the economic affects that this scam will be imposing on the public as well as the industry of New Zealand and indeed the world, without science being even settled on the reason behind the scam.

Is it an attitude of "ar fuck em the evil empires of this world deserve to go down" which would be catastrophic for humanity as indeed would the affect of global warming to the level advocated by the loonies, but in this comment however only one of these things is certain one isnt even real (and you know what I mean there)

I have come to realise after a week in that this is a religious issue, the loonies have made this into a religion, the science and facts dont stack up absolutely on any level, yet they are happy to release this crap upon the masses as if it was the second coming of jesus (which would in effect be more likely) coupled with some scientists craving the research dollar and some purchased high power players like the plonker Al gore and throw in a movie and some government officials singing "Im a environmentalist" and we find ourselves here now passing stupid things like the ETS and the Copenhagen agreement

people do you actually have a brain outside your own scientific craving for attention and research monies, this shit is real and your shit aint proven and to date you cant prove it.

sorry just some thoughts all good in debate !;)

[Grahameeboy]

I am now actually convinced you lot cant read.

the whole Carbon tax that is about to hit your pockets is based on the so called science that man made Co2 emissions are causing global warming (did you read that)

well it isnt, and there is no global warming as its getting cooler.and man made emissions count for only 1.7% of Co2 in the atmosphere.

I can write it any more simply than that, none of you have dispelled that simple bolded and underlined headline, so yup keep your head in the sand and expect a $3000 plus bill in your letter box next year, enjoy it knowing that your tax will make absolutely ZERO difference to the climate.

so where is the argument that should enable to big crooks to get your money ABSOLUTELY without question from practically any of you ?

bloody sheep:whistle:

Yeah and the idea that melting ice caps will rapidly raise the sea level is dubious because a) 2/3rds is under water b) melting ice = a lot less in water....takes about 4 billy cans of ice just to make a cuppa...(that's not a Darwin Theory either)

[Grahameeboy]

Also how do the Global warming scare mongers propose to deal with the economic affects that this scam will be imposing on the public as well as the industry of New Zealand and indeed the world, without science being even settled on the reason behind the scam.

Is it an attitude of "ar fuck em the evil empires of this world deserve to go down" which would be catastrophic for humanity as indeed would the affect of global warming to the level advocated by the loonies, but in this comment however only one of these things is certain one isnt even real (and you know what I mean there)

I have come to realise after a week in that this is a religious issue, the loonies have made this into a religion, the science and facts dont stack up absolutely on any level, yet they are happy to release this crap upon the masses as if it was the second coming of jesus (which would in effect be more likely) coupled with some scientists craving the research dollar and some purchased high power players like the plonker Al gore and throw in a movie and some government officials singing "Im a environmentalist" and we find ourselves here now passing stupid things like the ETS and the Copenhagen agreement

people do you actually have a brain outside your own scientific craving for attention and research monies, this shit is real and your shit aint proven and to date you cant prove it.

sorry just some thoughts all good in debate !;)

If I was Jesus I would stay at home till the dust settles...

[Badjelly]

Historically then how do you account for 4500 ppm of Co2 and a 12 c temperature (as it is today 12c roughly and current Co2 is 385ppm)

I don't. Like I said, you're talking about the distant past when a lot of things were different. And pealaeoclimatology is not something I know much about. [Edit: I don't even know how to spell it!] But I think the sun was putting out less radiation back then. I think the sun has been getting steadily hotter over the last few billion years and, in some sort of balancing act, the amount of CO2 has been going down, such that the Earth has remained at a habitable temperature. (We're talking very long-term trends here. there have been some pretty big swings in the Earth's climate.)


And yet right now the Co2 is going up yet the temperature is going down.

Wiggles. Global warming refers to a trend that shows up when you look at (roughly) 10 year averages of the global temperature. Trends calculated from periods of 5-10 years are all over the shop. No-one ever suggested they wouldn't be.

If you're sure the global temperature is going down, perhaps you'd care to make a bet?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/


I am still researching the link you gave for that claim. many of the papers refered to are not available on line, and the some of the ones that are have already been withdrawn or surpassed....

If I can help...

PS: there's a mistake in one of the references. In this one...

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.

...the page numbers should be 11,731-11,748. I'll get the Realclimate people to fix it.

[Badjelly]

...b) melting ice = a lot less in water....takes about 4 billy cans of ice just to make a cuppa...

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

[Quasievil]

I don't. Like I said, you're talking about the distant past when a lot of things were different. And pealaeoclimatology is not something I know much about. [Edit: I don't even know how to spell it!] But I think the sun was putting out less radiation back then. I think the sun has been getting steadily hotter over the last few billion years and, in some sort of balancing act, the amount of CO2 has been going down, such that the Earth has remained at a habitable temperature. (We're talking very long-term trends here. there have been some pretty big swings in the Earth's climate.)


So Co2 in the last few hundreds of thousands of years has become magical (okay im taking the piss)

I think there are a few debates going on here, mine I think is simple

Basically you scientists dont have enough evidence to justify taking our many, you have theories and that's all, even the weather models you use aren't reliable (science daily article)

the whole debate is on MAN MADE CO2 IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING, and on that headline youre pinning the case to take our money on scams like Kyoto, Copenhagen and the ETS

All you have is a theory and a theory does not give any one the right to take my money and throw our economy back a hundred years.

scienctists and governments needs to prove it and they cant, so they should lower the flag and concentrate on another con like these

There are weapons of mass destruction

year 2000 the worlds computer chips will collapse

SARS EPIDEMIC

And the list could continue

proof it, proof Co2 is man made and is causing global warming

[Quasievil]

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

PS I cant give you any more bling for the debate !

[Grahameeboy]

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

[Badjelly]

So CO2 in the last few hundreds of thousands of years has become magical (okay im taking the piss)

Maybe you are, but if (and I'd like to stress if) it's really true that CO2 over the last last few hundreds of thousands has been decreasing by just the amount required to compensate for the sun getting hotter, then you have to wonder: How does it know? There are a lot of puzzles about the long-term state of the Earth.


All you have is a theory

And you have...?

You keep asking for proof. You will not get it. Mathematics deals in proofs; science deals in theories & evidence & judgements. I cannot tell you increasing CO2 will certainly cause the Earth to warm, but I can tell you this is very likely.

[Badjelly]

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

[Grahameeboy]

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

Cheers....

[Badjelly]

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

I feel like Doctor Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Dr._Science

[Quasievil]

I feel like Doctor Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Dr._Science

I feel like lunch !

[Winston001]

Also how do the Global warming scare mongers propose to deal with the economic affects that this scam will be imposing on the public as well as the industry of New Zealand and indeed the world, without science being even settled on the reason behind the scam.

Is it an attitude of "ar fuck em the evil empires of this world deserve to go down" which would be catastrophic for humanity as indeed would the affect of global warming to the level advocated by the loonies, but in this comment however only one of these things is certain one isnt even real (and you know what I mean there)

I have come to realise after a week in that this is a religious issue, the loonies have made this into a religion, the science and facts dont stack up absolutely on any level, yet they are happy to release this crap upon the masses as if it was the second coming of jesus (which would in effect be more likely) coupled with some scientists craving the research dollar and some purchased high power players like the plonker Al gore and throw in a movie and some government officials singing "Im a environmentalist" and we find ourselves here now passing stupid things like the ETS and the Copenhagen agreement

people do you actually have a brain outside your own scientific craving for attention and research monies, this shit is real and your shit aint proven and to date you cant prove it.

sorry just some thoughts all good in debate !;)

Oh dear Quasi, you have it bad.

I've italicised the emotive elements of your post. No disrespect but.......the words and descriptions you use are common to conspiracy theorists and non-scientists. What you have said above is that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool or a scammer. The words used are pejorative and histrionic.

Contrast this with posts by Mikkel and Jantar (among others). Their explanations are rational, logical, unemotive, and calm. This approach is consistent with scientific debate and echos the reasoned research you can find in abundance on climate change.

Go to the web and you'll see anti-climate change proponents rely heavily on ad hominen attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, conspiracies, and deception. For example your post saying an English High court judge proved Al Gore was wrong - that's completely incorrect but has been repeated so often I don't blame you for being misled.

If you want a balanced starter point, go to our very own Dennis Dutton's site Climate Debate Daily - no sides taken, read what you choose. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

[Mikkel]

Oh dear Quasi, you have it bad.

I've italicised the emotive elements of your post. No disrespect but.......the words and descriptions you use are common to conspiracy theorists and non-scientists. What you have said above is that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool or a scammer. The words used are pejorative and histrionic.

Contrast this with posts by Mikkel and Jantar (among others). Their explanations are rational, logical, unemotive, and calm. This approach is consistent with scientific debate and echos the reasoned research you can find in abundance on climate change.

Go to the web and you'll see anti-climate change proponents rely heavily on ad hominen attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, conspiracies, and deception. For example your post saying an English High court judge proved Al Gore was wrong - that's completely incorrect but has been repeated so often I don't blame you for being misled.

If you want a balanced starter point, go to our very own Dennis Dutton's site Climate Debate Daily - no sides taken, read what you choose. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Oh dear, so you are saying I am not using sarcasm, ad hominem attacks and cynicism?

I'll get me coat then. ...I have to see my doctor ;)

[Pixie]

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

The only way it could weigh more is if it teleports itself do a planet of different mass as it melts.
:crazy:

[Pixie]

On the TV the other night they showed part of a doco 2 hippies produced about an island near Papua that is being "flooded by Global Warming".
I'd like someone to explain how the mean oceanic sea level can be different in different parts of the same ocean.
i.e. why isn't Takapuna being flooded?

-The island is actually on a subducting tectonic plate.

[Badjelly]

I'd like someone to explain how the mean oceanic sea level can be different in different parts of the same ocean.

Be careful what you wish for, I may just do that.

But you may well be right about the island in question. There are places on Earth where crust is sinking or rising much faster than the rate of global-mean sea level rise, which is currently ~ 2-3 mm/year.

[Grahameeboy]

The only way it could weigh more is if it teleports itself do a planet of different mass as it melts.
:crazy:

Don't call us..........

[Patar]

Quasi,
having done no research on this as I don't currently have the resources, when you state CO2 levels were >4000ppm in excess of 600 million years ago, there are a lot of factors that influenced global temps, not least of which is suspended particles in the air.
I am of the belief that there were a lot more volcanic eruptions back then which would mean higher CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases, but also dust in the atmosphere.

IIRC the Mt. Saint Helens eruption reduced global temperatures by 1-2 degrees C

[Badjelly]

IIRC the Mt. Saint Helens eruption reduced global temperatures by 1-2 degrees C

Mt St Helens was pretty small bikkies as volcanic eruptions go, and I don't think it had a discernible effect on global temperatures. However Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo) & Mt Hudson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hudson) in the early 1990s, and El Chichón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Chich%C3%B3n) in the early 1980s did have an effect.

[Quasievil]

guys guys guys, see what you NEED to realise is that Im only on page 48 the book is nearly 300 pages long I haven't even got started yet, so sit back and enjoy the show.

Currently on about the sun and its variation in spinning Axis relating to variations in temperatures.................no points to make yet but I wont be far away.

[Quasievil]

Oh dear Quasi, you have it bad.

I've italicised the emotive elements of your post. No disrespect but.......the words and descriptions you use are common to conspiracy theorists and non-scientists. What you have said above is that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool or a scammer. The words used are pejorative and histrionic.

Contrast this with posts by Mikkel and Jantar (among others). Their explanations are rational, logical, unemotive, and calm. This approach is consistent with scientific debate and echos the reasoned research you can find in abundance on climate change.

Go to the web and you'll see anti-climate change proponents rely heavily on ad hominen attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, conspiracies, and deception. For example your post saying an English High court judge proved Al Gore was wrong - that's completely incorrect but has been repeated so often I don't blame you for being misled.

If you want a balanced starter point, go to our very own Dennis Dutton's site Climate Debate Daily - no sides taken, read what you choose. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Maybe but it is a big subject one actual FACT I can claim to be accurate so far on my quest is that the science is NOT I repeat NOT conclusive, therefore any attitudes relate to the Pro warming peoples agendas to take my money, its my fucking money and if any fucker wants it the reasons better be fucking good, to date they aint !!

[Mikkel]

guys guys guys, see what you NEED to realise is that Im only on page 48 the book is nearly 300 pages long I haven't even got started yet, so sit back and enjoy the show.

Oh dear, so we're going to have 3 times as much more bollocks added to this thread than has already been?

Mate, make sure you engage your critical thinking before reading that stuff. The author is not a scientist and you have to judge for yourself whether he is, at least to some degree, objective as well as what his agenda is if he isn't. According to some sources he's even a nutcase...

[Jantar]

On the TV the other night they showed part of a doco 2 hippies produced about an island near Papua that is being "flooded by Global Warming".
I'd like someone to explain how the mean oceanic sea level can be different in different parts of the same ocean.
i.e. why isn't Takapuna being flooded?

-The island is actually on a subducting tectonic plate.

I also saw the pictures of the wave that rolled in, and contiuned to roll in and just kept coming. There was no sweep back, it just moved on relentlessly. Just as one would expect from a sieche wave rather than a normal oceanic wave. It certainly wasn't a rise in average sea levels that caused this wave.

[Quasievil]

Oh dear, so we're going to have 3 times as much more bollocks added to this thread than has already been?

Mate, make sure you engage your critical thinking before reading that stuff. The author is not a scientist and you have to judge for yourself whether he is, at least to some degree, objective as well as what his agenda is if he isn't. According to some sources he's even a nutcase...


Dont you worry young fella Im on the fence but to date I cannot find anything conclusive that encourages me to think that the pro group is accurate, everything noted by the pro group is countered by the anti group and the reverse is true as well, but like I say only one group wants our money so they have to prove it to me

[Badjelly]

According to some sources he's even a nutcase...

Nice to see you getting into the ad hominems now, mate. :2thumbsup

Mind you, just because people say he's a nutcase doesn't mean he isn't. :wacko:

[Badjelly]

Dont you worry young fella Im on the fence ...

Really? :tui:

[Mikkel]

Nice to see you getting into the ad hominems now, mate. :2thumbsup

Mind you, just because people say he's a nutcase doesn't mean he isn't. :wacko:

Oh, I was referring to one of the reviews of Aircon that was posted a bit back. I don't know the fella so how could I possibly judge.

...although if Ian Wishart's own words (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/) are anything to go by I'd have to say he's at least a borderline nutcase, somewhat lacking in appreciation of irony and most definitely a hypocrite.

[Mikkel]

Dont you worry young fella Im on the fence but to date I cannot find anything conclusive that encourages me to think that the pro group is accurate, everything noted by the pro group is countered by the anti group and the reverse is true as well, but like I say only one group wants our money so they have to prove it to me

Oh, by all means be skeptical. However, I'd have to question your intellect if you base your skepticism on the words of someone who writes stuff like this (http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/a-hazy-shade-of-wishart/):


What they [“wild greens”] really mean is that they want ordinary families and kids to become extinct, leaving space for the Green elite to run the planet and enjoy exclusive bird-watching excursions while feasting on the bones of six year olds who’d earlier been sold to Asian brothels.



And at the end of the day everyone wants everyone else's money...

[Badjelly]

...everything noted by the pro group is countered by the anti group...

Yes, that's the strategy. Deny everything. I wasn't there and I didn't kill him, well I may have injured him a bit, but I didn't mean to, and anyway he deserved it, and anyway, what about that other bloke that murdered 15 people, that's much worse than what I did, not that I'm admitting I did it, because I wasn't even there and you can't prove anything.

Or, from the climate change denial people: (a) global warming isn't happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway.

But good news for the anti people, at the beginning of last month, one of the leading climate change blogs admitted the denialists were right all along:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/farewell-to-our-readers/

[Badjelly]

Oh, by all means be skeptical. However, I'd have to question your intellect if you base your skepticism on the words of someone who writes stuff like this (http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/a-hazy-shade-of-wishart/):

You've got to admit it's catchy. As villains the Wild Green Elite beat the Running Dogs of Imperialism any day. The name is just so much better.

[SPman]

Jeez, if they bought in a pollution tax, KB would be hit pretty hard........

[Mikkel]

You've got to admit it's catchy. As villains the Wild Green Elite beat the Running Dogs of Imperialism any day. The name is just so much better.

Fuck yeah, we need a proper name too... especially if it means we can munch on the bones of 6-year olds!

[Quasievil]

Really? :tui:

Did you think all your efforts went to waste ?

[Badjelly]

Did you think all your efforts went to waste ?

In changing your mind? Yes, but I never had my hopes very high in the first place. Have you actually found something I've written convincing and/or interesting?

[Jantar]

guys guys guys, see what you NEED to realise is that Im only on page 48 the book is nearly 300 pages long I haven't even got started yet, so sit back and enjoy the show.

Currently on about the sun and its variation in spinning Axis relating to variations in temperatures.................no points to make yet but I wont be far away.

Now you are into my area of research. I am looking at the effects of the Decadal Pacific Oscilation (PDO) on hydrology. So far there is a pretty good corelation between the two, and between sun activity and the PDO.

I have not found a good corelation between the PDO and global temperatures, although there is a descernible pattern. Unlike many warmers, I am not going to rush into print and make any claims of causality.

[Quasievil]

In changing your mind? Yes, but I never had my hopes very high in the first place. Have you actually found something I've written convincing and/or interesting?

Of course I have, however the basic issue I have is Tax justification and that is something that I remain to have issue with on the Co2 man made climate change, I think that is still a crock of crap.
Fuck Clouds, sun oceans, natural etc all hold good cases on global warming but they aint taxing those, because its impossible so the fabric of the Co2 thing is a lie it seems at least in part.

[Winston001]

Be careful what you wish for, I may just do that.

But you may well be right about the island in question. There are places on Earth where crust is sinking or rising much faster than the rate of global-mean sea level rise, which is currently ~ 2-3 mm/year.

Yep, its one of the traps global warming proponents fall into. Tectonic forces have a lot to do with the disappearance of islands.

Mean sea level is incredibly hard to measure and the greatest accuracy is now from satellite measurements.

[Winston001]

Of course I have, however the basic issue I have is Tax justification and that is something that I remain to have issue with on the Co2 man made climate change, I think that is still a crock of crap.
Fuck Clouds, sun oceans, natural etc all hold good cases on global warming but they aint taxing those, because its impossible so the fabric of the Co2 thing is a lie it seems at least in part.

Fair enough. How do you feel about pollution? What do you think should be done about it - if anything?

[Quasievil]

Fair enough. How do you feel about pollution? What do you think should be done about it - if anything?

What is exactly wrong with what we are doing now, why not keep doing it and going further with it, ie filtration on exhaust towers in heavy industry catalytic converters in vehicles, modification of fuels etc etc etc etc

How is it that a personal and a industry based Co2 carbon footprint tax is the answer when legislation and policy is as effective, the earth pollution has improved vastly in the last few decades, if we can pull China and India and a few others across whats the problem.

Since when in New Zealand has taxing and creating a beauracratic monster ever worked.

Will tax money clean up the environment or will the legalised LOOT take go into the consolidated fund and into the big money end of business driving this Co2 crapola.

I never said the earth has no pollution issues, however this process seems to me to be a scam without backup.

Like I say a million times, if there is money in it follow it to find the truth, guilt tripping and taxing us into the dark ages is not the answer.

[Edbear]

Did you think all your efforts went to waste ?

I used to have this saying about leftovers, "If it's going to go to waste, it may as well go to mine..."


Fair enough. How do you feel about pollution? ...

I'm agin it...

[Jantar]

Fair enough. How do you feel about pollution? What do you think should be done about it - if anything?I believe most people are against pollution. But that is a totally dfifferent subject to Global Warming.

[Winston001]

I believe most people are against pollution. But that is a totally dfifferent subject to Global Warming.

Different subject, agreed. But the two issues are intertwined. By reducing carbon producing actions, we also reduce pollution. Its not a perfect symmetry but close enough for carbon reduction to be a simple catch-all way of cleaning the planet.

Most polluting industries are also reliant on carbon energy sources. Reduce the carbon, reduce the pollution. Not just CO and CO2 but also heavy metals, complex hydrocarbons, salts,...... it goes on and on.

[Quasievil]

By reducing carbon producing actions, we also reduce pollution.

so how do we reduce 98.3 % of natural Carbon producing actions ? taxing ?

[Jantar]

...Most polluting industries are also reliant on carbon energy sources. Reduce the carbon, reduce the pollution. Not just CO and CO2 but also heavy metals, complex hydrocarbons, salts,...... it goes on and on.

Most non polluting industries are also reliant on carbon energy sources. What you are really suggesting is to regress to the dark ages. Personally I'd rather identify the pollutants and target the industries that are causing them directly. The first ones I'd go for are dairy farms that allow effluent to reach the waterways.

[Pwalo]

Pollution! My brother has just come back from the Phillipines (including Manilla). His first words to me when I picked him up from the airport were along the lines that New Zealand may as well stop worrying about it's pollution.

Apparently the rush hour (well any time really) in Manilla negates any effort we could possibly make in the whole country.

Still waiting to see any proven causal link between emissions and global warming.

[Badjelly]

Sea level, sea level, now where was I. Ah yes, sea level...

Sea level at any particular place can change independently from, or in addition to, the effects of global-mean sea level change or tectonic movement. And these changes can be at surprisingly high rates (well, they surprised me) over a decade or two.

The thing to remember that the sea isn't actually level, even when you average out waves and tides. A level surface is one where if you put an object on it, it doesn't tend to slide or roll sideways. (Imagine a steel ball, but with much lower rolling friction, in fact none.) Another way to say it is a level surface exactly at right angles to the force of gravity. The level surface that wraps around the globe at (roughly) mean sea level is called the geoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid). People have gone to a great deal of trouble to map the geoid (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/), and they're still working on it.

But the mean level of the sea doesn't follow the geoid exactly. Why? Ocean currents. Ocean currents are driven by pressure gradients, just as winds are, and as the surface wind tends to blow around the lows and highs of a weather map, so the ocean surface currents flow around lows and highs in the sea level. We can map the sea level relative to the geoid around NZ reasonably accurately, not by mapping either of them exactly, but by seeing what sea level deflections are needed to balance the surface currents. Between North Cape and Bluff there's a difference of about 80 mm, but across the very strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current that wraps around the southern end of the NZ continental shelf there's a difference of something like 1.5 m.

But we don't care about that, we care about changes in sea level. (Well I do. Quasievil just cares about his wallet, which is fair enough I suppose.) Well, the ocean circulation does change, partly driven by natural forcing and partly by human-forced changes. (Yes, really, but I'm not going to explain why people think that right now.) So the mean sea level changes with time. For example, since we first starting getting good data from satellite altimeters in 1992, the sea level in the ocean east of the North Island east coast has risen something like 200 mm (don't quote me on these numbers). Most of this change occurred between 1993 and 2003, so the rate of change during that decade was about 20 mm per year. For comparison, the global average sea level rise over the 20th century is estimated to have been 170 mm (1.7 mm/yr) and the rate of change in the global average since 1992 has been ~ 3 mm/yr.

Why did this change occur? Spin-up of the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre in response to a strengthening of the westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, probaly. (References available.)

Now I'm not suggesting sea level changes of the sort I'm describing can continue indefinitely, but on periods of decades they can dominate sea level change at any given place. No-one on the east coast of the North Island noticed the change I described above, to the best of my knowledge, but if you lived on a group of islands like The Maldives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives), where the highest point is 2.3 metres above sea level (which is a bit of a moving reference, obviously) then you might care a great deal about a change of 200 mm. And it may be part of the picture for this island people have been talking about near PNG. (I believe it was mentioned on the Sunday programme on TV1, which I didn't see.) Near PNG you'd have to think El Nino's would have a significant impact on sea level.

[ghost]

Sea level, sea level, now where was I. Ah yes, sea level...

Sea level at any particular place can change independently from, or in addition to, the effects of global-mean sea level change or tectonic movement. And these changes can be at surprisingly high rates (well, they surprised me) over a decade or two.

The thing to remember that the sea isn't actually level, even when you average out waves and tides. A level surface is one where if you put an object on it, it doesn't tend to slide or roll sideways. (Imagine a steel ball, but with much lower rolling friction, in fact none.) Another way to say it is a level surface exactly at right angles to the force of gravity. The level surface that wraps around the globe at (roughly) mean sea level is called the geoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid). People have gone to a great deal of trouble to map the geoid (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/), and they're still working on it.

But the mean level of the sea doesn't follow the geoid exactly. Why? Ocean currents. Ocean currents are driven by pressure gradients, just as winds are, and as the surface wind tends to blow around the lows and highs of a weather map, so the ocean surface currents flow around lows and highs in the sea level. We can map the sea level relative to the geoid around NZ reasonably accurately, not by mapping either of them exactly, but by seeing what sea level deflections are needed to balance the surface currents. Between North Cape and Bluff there's a difference of about 80 mm, but across the very strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current that wraps around the southern end of the NZ continental shelf there's a difference of something like 1.5 m.

But we don't care about that, we care about changes in sea level. (Well I do. Quasievil just cares about his wallet, which is fair enough I suppose.) Well, the ocean circulation does change, partly driven by natural forcing and partly by human-forced changes. (Yes, really, but I'm not going to explain why people think that right now.) So the mean sea level changes with time. For example, since we first starting getting good data from satellite altimeters in 1992, the sea level in the ocean east of the North Island east coast has risen something like 200 mm (don't quote me on these numbers). Most of this change occurred between 1993 and 2003, so the rate of change during that decade was about 20 mm per year. For comparison, the global average sea level rise over the 20th century is estimated to have been 170 mm (1.7 mm/yr) and the rate of change in the global average since 1992 has been ~ 3 mm/yr.

Why did this change occur? Spin-up of the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre in response to a strengthening of the westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, probaly. (References available.)

Now I'm not suggesting sea level changes of the sort I'm describing can continue indefinitely, but on periods of decades they can dominate sea level change at any given place. No-one on the east coast of the North Island noticed the change I described above, to the best of my knowledge, but if you lived on a group of islands like The Maldives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives), where the highest point is 2.3 metres above sea level (which is a bit of a moving reference, obviously) then you might care a great deal about a change of 200 mm. And it may be part of the picture for this island people have been talking about near PNG. (I believe it was mentioned on the Sunday programme on TV1, which I didn't see.) Near PNG you'd have to think El Nino's would have a significant impact on sea level.


So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?

So where does carbon tax come into this?

[Skyryder]

So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?

So where does carbon tax come into this?


Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.


Skyryder

[ghost]

Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.


Skyryder

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.

[Badjelly]

So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?


Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.

Plus some melting of ice caps.

Yes, ghost, there will be times when there are rising and falling sea levels depending on location, just as there is with temperature. This does not mean the global-average trend is unimportant. The IPCC has estimated sea level rise over the 21st century will be 0.18-0.59 m plus an unknown contribution from any future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow. I don't think anyone seriously thinks it will be at the low end of that range. At the upper end of that range it would be a big deal for low-lying coastal areas and islands. (Do you feel lucky, punk? Huh, do you?)

And I certainly didn't say "sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming".

[Pixie]

Climate change is good.
It killed off the Dinosaurs and allowed mammals to become dominant.
It motivated Modern Humans to migrate out of Africa.
The Bering Land Bridge allowed Humans To migrate into the Americas.
Plus countless other effects.

And,hopefully,it will reduce the extent of the Human Plague on the Earth


-see,I'm a REAL conservationist.

[Badjelly]

So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this.

The case is laid out in the latest IPCC report.


When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit. There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.

Indeed. And that is why the IPCC doesn't just issue a report saying "99 out of 100 scientists think this". They lay out the reasoning behind the conclusion in excruciating details. They come up with estimates with real numbers, uncertainties and estimates of confidence. If there's something they don't think they've got a handle on, they say so (future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow).

Then if 1 out of 100 (or whatever) scientists disagree, they get to put forward their reasoning, precisely, in scientific papers, where it can be considered and criticised by other scientists. And the other scientist are still fucking waiting for the self-proclaimed sceptics to do this.

[Quasievil]

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.

Yeah Bad Jelly !!

This is tag team debating, loving it lol

Anyway I aint seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

[Skyryder]

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.


I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

[Badjelly]

Anyway I ain't seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

You've seen it, you just didn't believe it.

[ghost]

The case is laid out in the latest IPCC report.



Indeed. And that is why the IPCC doesn't just issue a report saying "99 out of 100 scientists think this". They lay out the reasoning behind the conclusion in excruciating details. They come up with estimates with real numbers, uncertainties and estimates of confidence. If there's something they don't think they've got a handle on, they say so (future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow).

Then if 1 out of 100 (or whatever) scientists disagree, they get to put forward their reasoning, precisely, in scientific papers, where it can be considered and criticised by other scientists. And the other scientist are still fucking waiting for the self-proclaimed sceptics to do this.


For every rational, reasoning pro warming scientist there appears to be a growing number of scientists around the world that global warming / cooling has very little to do with human emmisions. Remember the the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change was set up to study the impact of man made climate change. Without scientific papers confirming man made climate change, without scientist prepared to write these papers, without funding for the scientists to write these papers there would be fuck all for them do to. Sound like a self perpetuating buerocracy to you?

Aside from that what has carbon tax got to do with global warming, it is another means of gathering and distributing funds on a global means, the end result will have little if any effect on man made carbon emision.

If you would like something to worry about how about the sun spot activity. If it remains as low has it has been, warming may be the last of your worries, you may even wonder why you are paying so much tax for freezing your arse off in a so call global warming enviroment......

[Badjelly]

This is tag team debating, loving it lol


Who are you? Conan the Cruncher? Gorgeous George?

[Badjelly]

For every rational, reasoning pro warming scientist there appears to be a growing number of scientists around the world that global warming / cooling has very little to do with human emmisions.

So who's trying to settle scientific questions by counting scientists now?

And "appears" is the operative word.


Remember the the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change was set up to study the impact of man made climate change. Without scientific papers confirming man made climate change, without scientist prepared to write these papers, without funding for the scientists to write these papers there would be fuck all for them do to. Sound like a self perpetuating buerocracy to you?

The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

[Magua]

I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

Emissions trading schemes work by setting a max level of emissions. Every industry that's emitting carbon is allocated 'credits', which equal a certain amount they can emmit. If one industry is emitting more than they are entitled to, say a coal power plant, they can buy credits from someone who is emitting less than they are entitled to. It's a financial insentive to reduce emissions.

[ghost]

When you write something with you name or KB signature on it it becomes a statement. You claimed (wrote, posted, call it what you will) that sea temperture has nothing to do with sea levels.I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

When you write/post on KB with your name and end the sentance with a ? That is a question. Questions generally end with a ? Statements end with a .

My point was how can mean sea temperture solely contribute to rising / lowering when tectonic plate movement both above and below, thermal dymamics, current flow, atomosperic pressure has a long term localized effect on sea level. I was asking this as a question. but feel free to cloud the issues when some one ask a question were the tax issue sits with this and how taxing ourelves will somehow fix these issues...

[ghost]

So who's trying to settle scientific questions by counting scientists now?

And "appears" is the operative word.



The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

Not counting, just listening to arguments for and against the debate at hand.

It "appears" there is no concensus, therefore it appears there is no definative man made global warming....

Now polution is a whole different issue, but lets not digress....

[ghost]

The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

Yeah, their the scientists writing the reports on gobal warming.....$$.... Tui moment

[Quasievil]

You've seen it, you just didn't believe it.


Is that it ? mate for me to pass on my cash to some government run organisation I need way better and conclusive evidence than that

SO we pay tax and everything is okay, lets look at some examples of where we pay tax and it all becomes okay

ummmmm

ummmmm

Nope not a bean so how is me paying tax going to change anything at all ?

Particularly when the basis for Co2 Emissions being caused by man is a floored argument and one that isnt proven or the science settled.

[Mikkel]

Anyway I aint seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

Well, one day you might be presented with very solid evidence - such as a statutory enactment of said tax. Feel free to try and not pay it once it has been ratified ;)

[Badjelly]

There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.


It "appears" there is no concensus, therefore it appears there is no definative man made global warming....

Just asking a question here, but can you see a contradiction?


Yeah, their the scientists writing the reports on gobal warming.....$$.... Tui moment

So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

[Skyryder]

When you write/post on KB with your name and end the sentance with a ? That is a question. Questions generally end with a ? Statements end with a .

My point was how can mean sea temperture solely contribute to rising / lowering when tectonic plate movement both above and below, thermal dymamics, current flow, atomosperic pressure has a long term localized effect on sea level. I was asking this as a question. but feel free to cloud the issues when some one ask a question were the tax issue sits with this and how taxing ourelves will somehow fix these issues...

Yep ok I missed the ? (see my greenie to you) mark it's why I usually add ??

I don't believe that there is a single contributing factor for sea level changes but the general consensus that I get from those that do or will not acknowledge, that the bulk of the scientific community agrees that global warming is 'predominately' influenced by man and his technology. Whenever there is some type of opposition like petitions or declarations, summits call them what you may………..somewhere in the background there is an industry whose financial interests are in opposition to the science that ‘clearly’ shows the influence of said industry. These tend to be the fossil fuel industries, but plastics are another to name just one.

Governments do not wily nily put in place extra costs to business in fact most western governments have embraced the free market position in the belief to reduce costs, not only to corporates but it’s citizens in their daily lives.


Don’t know about the tax but some have referred to the carbon credit. This is not a tax.

Carbon credits put a monetary value to the cost of pollution. These emissions become a cost that can be seen on the audit books along with raw materials, liabilities and assets. As yet I am unsure of how these costs are worked out or by whom but I’m looking into this.

As I understand the system it works something like this.

A business whose factory is emitting 500.000 tons of greenhouse gas (carbon etc) and it has been granted (legislated) so that it can legally emit 400,000 tons. Now the factory either reduces its emissions to the legislated level of 400,000 or it can go even further and reduce this to say 300,000 tons. Now it has three choices. It can purchase carbon credits to offset the excess from the legal 400,000 up to 500,000. It can reduce it’s emissions down to the legal 400,000 or it can reduce down to 300,000 and then resell the 100,000 carbon credits. In essence carbon credits give a monetary value and as such create a market where a company can sell it’s credits by way of reducing emissions. In other words carbon credits give corpertes and incentive to reduce atmospheric pollution. Now like most things I’m sure some one will do scam on this but in essence, if I am correct in how the Carbon credit system works, I do not have a problem with it. That does not mean to say that I won’t in the future as I am still a bit uncertain on many of it's ideas, it’s just as things now stand any incentive that reduces atmospheric pollution for whatever reason I’ll go for it.

Skyryder

[Badjelly]

a) CO2 began to rise when we starting producing it in earnest, b) its isotopic signature demonstrates it comes predominantly from fossil fuels, and c) such an increase has not happened in at least 800,000 years as far as we can tell.


Particularly when the basis for CO2 Emissions being caused by man is a floored argument and one that isnt proven or the science settled.

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.

Yeah, I'll put that theory forward at a scientific conference and see if the science is settled.

Over to you, Dr Evil.

[ghost]

Just asking a question here, but can you see a contradiction?



So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

Or we could make a movie out of it, misquote, misrepresent, mislead, encourage goverments to introduce tax schemes that will have no impact except on the pockets of the citizens, and back it all up with reports from a UN agency.

I think the argument for Man Made global warming is to looks at too narrow a feild to be able to draw any reliable conclutions. If the atomosheric scientists are that good, why cant they predict the weather for next christmas. Probably because there are to many variables to contend with and not enough understanding how they each vary and impact on one another.

And to introduce a tax, which will effect you and I, with no proof on how it will solve global warming. (like global warming is bad).

Almost like introducing speed limits to stop road accidents, that one works doesnt it?

[cave weta]

Ive read about 8 pages of this thread... Im busy and cant digest all of it-
I havent followed any of the links or taken sides. Although Freerider, DavidRied and others are gaining lots of my respect for Their research and devotion top the subject that has been discussed here for coming up a full year.

I have just one Question that has not been touched on yet...

What is causing the Global Warming on other planets that dont have SUVs, coal fired powerstations and aerosols?

[Mikkel]

So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

Exactly.


But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

When writing a paper it is good practice to abstain from using "we" - it is bloody difficult to remove, now what's the proper word, personal references... However, it is worth the exercise since the result is more professional. Neither would you put forward the names of the authors of your references in your main text. The names are without import - and easily accessible in your list of references.

Also, in 1994 that show was called "Alas Smith and Jones".


In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

Stop mate, you are talking too much sense... I have to say though - it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative, which is why the denialists are exactly that - denying instead of actually contributing to the debate.

[Finn]

I think the title of this thread sums this nonsense up very well.

The more I hear "green" and "environment", the more I do to exactly the opposite to what I am expected to do such as; tip oil down the drain, don't recycle, buy petrol guzzling cars & bikes, cut down trees, etc, etc, etc.

The World is fine. Perhaps a little over populated with non producing, gimme gimme peasants but nature will sort this lot out.

[ghost]

Yep ok I missed the ? (see my greenie to you) mark it's why I usually add ??

I don't believe that there is a single contributing factor for sea level changes but the general consensus that I get from those that do or will not acknowledge, that the bulk of the scientific community agrees that global warming is 'predominately' influenced by man and his technology. Whenever there is some type of opposition like petitions or declarations, summits call them what you may………..somewhere in the background there is an industry whose financial interests are in opposition to the science that ‘clearly’ shows the influence of said industry. These tend to be the fossil fuel industries, but plastics are another to name just one.

Governments do not wily nily put in place extra costs to business in fact most western governments have embraced the free market position in the belief to reduce costs, not only to corporates but it’s citizens in their daily lives.


Don’t know about the tax but some have referred to the carbon credit. This is not a tax.

Carbon credits put a monetary value to the cost of pollution. These emissions become a cost that can be seen on the audit books along with raw materials, liabilities and assets. As yet I am unsure of how these costs are worked out or by whom but I’m looking into this.

As I understand the system it works something like this.

A business whose factory is emitting 500.000 tons of greenhouse gas (carbon etc) and it has been granted (legislated) so that it can legally emit 400,000 tons. Now the factory either reduces its emissions to the legislated level of 400,000 or it can go even further and reduce this to say 300,000 tons. Now it has three choices. It can purchase carbon credits to offset the excess from the legal 400,000 up to 500,000. It can reduce it’s emissions down to the legal 400,000 or it can reduce down to 300,000 and then resell the 100,000 carbon credits. In essence carbon credits give a monetary value and as such create a market where a company can sell it’s credits by way of reducing emissions. In other words carbon credits give corpertes and incentive to reduce atmospheric pollution. Now like most things I’m sure some one will do scam on this but in essence, if I am correct in how the Carbon credit system works, I do not have a problem with it. That does not mean to say that I won’t in the future as I am still a bit uncertain on many of it's ideas, it’s just as things now stand any incentive that reduces atmospheric pollution for whatever reason I’ll go for it.

Skyryder

Ta for the greenie, Im all for reducing pollution, waste, effluent (dont start me on 1080), but treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (fark, cut all the trees down, there gonna kill us all) and setting an artificial value on them for the purpose of trading is an extremly flawed scheme. Ar'nt we suffering at the moment because of speculative valuing off $. The whole idea seems flawed and an unreasonable burden on our economy for no real gain.

What if the Global Warming / Cooling cycle of earth (sea level rising falling) is largely effected by solar activity, of what value would carbon tax be seen in ten years?

[Quasievil]

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.

Yeah, I'll put that theory forward at a scientific conference and see if the science is settled.

Over to you, Dr Evil.

Again? Ive already answered that.

Hey in a nutshell you guys cannot prove that Co2 is manmade........you can blab on about all soughts of crap but you cant proof the essence of your claim, which in turn is the very same claim carried (by the loonies) to the Copenhagen agreement.

We dont have to prove anything , you do, youre asking for our money we arent. and your asking for it under the guise of manmade Co2 is causing global warming , thats it that is all there is to debate

If your theory (and I mean theory) was rock solid there would not be an argument.

[ghost]

Again? Ive already answered that.

Hey in a nutshell you guys cannot prove that Co2 is manmade........you can blab on about all soughts of crap but you cant proof the essence of your claim, which in turn is the very same claim carried (by the loonies) to the Copenhagen agreement.

We dont have to prove anything , you do, youre asking for our money we arent. and your asking for it under the guise of manmade Co2 is causing global warming , thats it that is all there is to debate

If your theory (and I mean theory) was rock solid there would not be an argument.

What he said.

its the tree's man... its the tree's

[Quasievil]

What if the Global Warming / Cooling cycle of earth (sea level rising falling) is largely effected by solar activity, of what value would carbon tax be seen in ten years?

We wouldnt get it back Im sure

I Propose a new tax, its called Solar Depletion tax (SDT), anyone that uses the suns energy is thereby depleting this natural resourse and they should pay for it to discourage its use, on the basis that I can prove that taking heat from the sun is causing global cooling. here are some peliminary guidelines

1/ Anyone with a solar panel must now pay the SDT (solar depletion tax)
2/ Sunbathers must pay the SDT (nudists pay extra)
3/ Outdoor cafes pay SDT, using umbrellas reduces the SDT payed
4/ If you use the sun to dry your washing you pay SDT
5/ Farmers using the sun to grow grass pay SDT
6/ Outdoor events pay a standard per head SDT (refund 50% if it rains)

the list is still under construction, but my science absolutely proves that the sun has an effect on the global temperatures and mankind drawing this resource is having a effect on our planet if we dont act NOW we will freeze to death, maybe not us but our childrens children will !!

(all we need now is a famous movie maker and a has been dipshit politician, pay off a few scientists get some scare tatics a few news items and we are away, Dont worry Mr Keys sign NIWA over to me and I can guarantee 1 billion dollars of revenue for you per year , Oh and Mr Keys can you just pop over to conpenhagen to sign this bit of paper to for us eh ? there is a good lapdog)

NOW PROVE IM WRONG !!

[ghost]

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.

Yeah, I'll put that theory forward at a scientific conference and see if the science is settled.

Over to you, Dr Evil.

So if the industial era has caused heaps of co2 and co2 is the only contributor of global warming then why the fuck is green land covered in ice, today, now?

Was there previously no warm period on earth, was there previouly no cold period on earth.

Isnt if a fact that the warming and cooling on earth is a cyclical norm. Isnt it a fact that atmosphric co2 is about 0.04% by volume, how much of this is contributed to man?

If you removed all man made co2, would the climate stabalize?

Dont think so, why pay tax for it?

[ghost]

We wouldnt get it back Im sure

I Propose a new tax, its called Solar Depletion tax (SDT), anyone that uses the suns energy is thereby depleting this natural resourse and they should pay for it to discourage its use, on the basis that I can prove that taking heat from the sun is causing global cooling. here are some peliminary guidelines

1/ Anyone with a solar panel must now pay the SDT (solar depletion tax)
2/ Sunbathers must pay the SDT (nudists pay extra)
3/ Outdoor cafes pay SDT, using umbrellas reduces the SDT payed
4/ If you use the sun to dry your washing you pay SDT
5/ Farmers using the sun to grow grass pay SDT
6/ Outdoor events pay a standard per head SDT (refund 50% if it rains)

the list is still under construction, but my science absolutely proves that the sun has an effect on the global temperatures and mankind drawing this resource is having a effect on our planet if we dont act NOW we will freeze to death, maybe not us but our childrens children will !!

(all we need now is a famous movie maker and a has been dipshit politician, pay off a few scientists get some scare tatics a few news items and we are away, Dont worry Mr Keys sign NIWA over to me and I can guarantee 1 billion dollars of revenue for you per year , Oh and Mr Keys can you just pop over to conpenhagen to sign this bit of paper to for us eh ? there is a good lapdog)

NOW PROVE IM WRONG !!

Do i get a credit for my shiny head?

[Finn]

If you removed all man made co2, would the climate stabalize?

Don't hold your breath...

[Quasievil]

Do i get a credit for my shiny head?

Shit that's a thought, reflection throwing more heat into the atmosphere making (you guess it) GLOBAL WARMING !!!!! rooftops should be made illegal or made from some kinda non reflective material, shit wot about car roofs there are lots more cars to than when the Dinosaurs drove them around FORCING CO2 LEVELS TO 4000 PPM OVER TODAY'S 385PPM


Common Jelly just trying to break the boredom

[Badjelly]

What is causing the Global Warming on other planets that dont have SUVs, coal fired powerstations and aerosols?

What caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) 55.8 million years ago here on little old Earth?

Why is the sky blue?

What is your point?

Aah, these are all imponderable questions for which we will never have an answer. Well, not for the last one, anyway.

[Badjelly]

Shit that's a thought, reflection throwing more heat into the atmosphere making (you guess it) GLOBAL WARMING !!!!! rooftops should be made illegal or made from some kinda non reflective material, ...

Common Jelly just trying to break the boredom

You should know that I have no sense of humour and am always earnest.

Actually, people are seriously suggesting that we should all paint our roofs white (that's a reflective colour, not a non-reflective one) to reduce global warming.

You see, not a glimmer of a smile from me. :(

[Badjelly]

If you removed all man made co2, would the climate stabalize?

Not completely, no.


Don't hold your breath...

:yawn:

[ManDownUnder]

I have the definitive answer

Global warming's not real - it's a cyclical thing... but it makes sense to stop burning fossil fuels anyway, make like they're not an infinite resource and start planning alternatives.

*Yawn*

NEXT!

[Quasievil]

Why is the sky blue?




its not its cloudy and the clouds are causing GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22205/Clouds_Mitigate_Global_Warming_New_Evidence_Shows. html


Tax the clouds, and everyone run outside with your hair dryers or we are doomed, DOOMED DOOMED I SAY

[Badjelly]

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.


Again? Ive already answered that.

Must have missed it.


If your theory (and I mean theory) was rock solid there would not be an argument.

Yes there would. That's one thing I can say for certain.

[ghost]

Yes there would. That's one thing I can say for certain.


No there wouldn't....:Pokey:[




:laugh:[

[Jantar]

If there is ever concensus, then it isn't science. If it is science there can never be concensus, untill every little variabale is identifiable, measurable, predictable, manageable and provable. At that stage it stops being science and becomes engineering.

[Pixie]

there are lots more cars to than when the Dinosaurs drove them around

Everybody knows the dinosaurs did not drive cars.However the cavemen of the time kicked up a lot of dust when they paddled their cars and this atmosheric dust reduced the solar energy reaching the earth.

Maybe we should go back to Flinstone cars like the Greenies want us to.

[Badjelly]

Everybody knows the dinosaurs did not drive cars...

So you reckon there's a consensus about this?

[Hitcher]

So you reckon there's a consensus about this?

Check with Edbear. I'm sure he has a theory about Chrysler coexisting with dinosaurs and why one evolved and the other didn't...

[Patar]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?

[Jantar]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?

And this has what relevence to Global warming?

[Quasievil]

And this has what relevence to Global warming?


It amazing me how little people are able to see through the BS and actually understand whats going on

[Quasievil]

The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.



if the world had more Co2 there would be more crops to eat.

[Patar]

No relevance, but for the last ~7 pages quasi has been spouting the line of "LieS gLobaL WarmInG iS LieS, tHey STeaLing MaH MonIES!"

So if you're not going to actually debate AGW then I thought I'd throw an obscure scenario into the mix.

Whether you're taxing pollution because of "global warming" or any other reason, hitting people in the pocket is the best method for compliance if they refuse to self regulate and improve upon minimum regulatiory obligations (just because regulations set a minimum level of compliance doesn't mean you aren't allowed to exceed it).

[Patar]

if the world had more Co2 there would be more crops to eat.

That's a pretty silly thing to say, by that I assume you're implying there is currently a worldwide shortage of CO2 for plants to utilise?

[Quasievil]

No relevance, but for the last ~7 pages quasi has been spouting the line of "LieS gLobaL WarmInG iS LieS, tHey STeaLing MaH MonIES!"


No thats not the message at all, the message is Manmade Co2 is not casuing Global warming and its not and you cant prove it is, and if you want my money you need to prove, I dont have to do a damn thing other than pester the loony greenies

And No not my money exclusively, yours to

[Quasievil]

That's a pretty silly thing to say, by that I assume you're implying there is currently a worldwide shortage of CO2 for plants to utilise?

I didnt say their is a shortage, are you saying that more Co2 would Not increase crop production?

[ghost]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?


?? WTF.

If you want to reduce or eliminate pollution, how is tax the best way of doing this? A carbon credits trading scheme is a way of quantifying the amount of acceptable carbon emitted into the atmosphere and placing a value on it. The long story short is that it will burden every family in this country with an extra expenence with no effect on the actual amount emmitted. If your a bit strange in the head and think co2 is the biggest threat to this planet this should the last thing you would hope for. If you thing MMGW is a crock of shit, its also the last thing you would hope for.
There are many way of reducing polutants in our enviroment, quotas, and taxes isnt one of them.
Mmmmm Road deaths, lets set a quota for issuing tickets for speeding as this is a component of road deaths and fine (tax) people who use more that there fair share. that fix it....:crazy:

Sound familiar?

[Quasievil]

A Quick note on taxes and effect

health system......fail
Police.................fail
Defence..............fail
education............fail
everything ..........fail


mmmmmm but for some magic reason

Co2 .............success , insert Tui moment here in capitals

thats on the assumption that Co2 is a causing man made global warming in the first place which it isnt and no one can prove it is

[Patar]

I didnt say their is a shortage, are you saying that more Co2 would Not increase crop production?

Sure, theoretically... it could.
If CO2 was the limiting factor, which unless there was a shortage it isn't.
So in summation, no, more CO2 would not increase crop production for the simple reason than it is not scarce. Things like nutrients, water and sunlight would increase crop production.


And onto your argument, what I don't understand about it is that you are of the opinion that we should reduce the amount of pollution we produce, but oppose carbon trading for the sheer reason that you can't see proof that global warming exists. The net effect of carbon trading will be to reduce net pollution levels... which you have nothing against (I would assume/hope).


That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.

[Quasievil]

That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.

Then we are settled, because I think Money will not provide a solution also, Im anti pollution (but I haven't made a religion out of it)
I also think the developed world is going in the right direction with legislation etc and yes now its time to challenge the third world countries to develop and improve there lot.

What we dont need taxes and the loonies throwing our world in the stone age.

[Patar]

Taxes are the easiest and fastest way to get some form of result.

And while many people here in NZ would have an opinion something along the lines of "we're so small nothing we do would have a noticeable effect", does that mean that 4million people from every country around the world should be exempt from environmental legislation?

The reason everything is so f'd up atm is because of countries acting in self intrest, carbon trading is the first step in making countries behave as if their actions have consequences outside their own borders.

[Quasievil]

That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.




carbon trading is the first step in making countries behave as if their actions have consequences outside their own borders.

Okay youre making good sense now wtf

[Patar]

You have to start somewhere, and while I don't personally agree with how they started, they have atleast done something which is better than if the "global warming doesn't exist" crew had their way.

If you examine some scenarios of:
1) Do nothing, AGW false
2) Do something, AGW false
3) Do nothing, AGW true
4) Do something, AGW true

then you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) End of world as we know it
4) Possibly mitigate effects

I would chose to do something as the worst case of doing nothing is worse than the worst case of doing something

[Jantar]

Sure, theoretically... it could.
If CO2 was the limiting factor, which unless there was a shortage it isn't.
So in summation, no, more CO2 would not increase crop production for the simple reason than it is not scarce. Things like nutrients, water and sunlight would increase crop production.


And onto your argument, what I don't understand about it is that you are of the opinion that we should reduce the amount of pollution we produce, but oppose carbon trading for the sheer reason that you can't see proof that global warming exists. The net effect of carbon trading will be to reduce net pollution levels... which you have nothing against (I would assume/hope).


....

Perhaps you haven't heard about a process that happens in plants called photosynthesis. It is a process whereby sunlight provides the energy to convert CO2 and H20 into sugars and starches. It is what makes plants grow. Note that the major component is CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a fertiliser , and increased CO2 levels does indeed equate to more vigorous plant growth.

Now to your point that you made in a couple of posts about industries that produce CO2 also produce other pollutants. That being the case a CO2 tax would reduce such emmisions.

I would like to point you to our energy system where the major users of natural gas are the combined cycle power stations. They burn methane gas in this reaction: 2CH4 + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 2H2O + heat
Or 2 methane molecule + 3 Oxygen molecules produce 2 CO2 molecules plus 2 water molecules plus heat. Note that the only emmisiions are CO2 and water. Why do you wish to tax water production?

[Jantar]

You have to start somewhere, and while I don't personally agree with how they started, they have atleast done something which is better than if the "global warming doesn't exist" crew had their way.

If you examine some scenarios of:
1) Do nothing, AGW false
2) Do something, AGW false
3) Do nothing, AGW true
4) Do something, AGW true

then you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) End of world as we know it
4) Possibly mitigate effects

I would chose to do something as the worst case of doing nothing is worse than the worst case of doing something

However the evidence is that you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) Improved food productivity, fewer wars, more trade, more discoveries.
4) Economic collapse, depression

[Max Preload]

The only way vegetation produces CO2 is if you burn it. (Be it old stuff as in oil or new stuff as in forest fires). The rest of the time all the plants are actually absorbing CO2 and releasing O2 as part of the photosynthetic process.

They emit CO2 when they decompose and at night.

Either way, I for one do not believe CO2 to be the bogey man that it's played out to be. I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming - there is no concensus that it exists - not even a majority. The IPCC is a political not scientific organisation, so I sure as hell don't believe any fucking thing they say. I also don't believe anyone needs any more reason than the simple fact Enron backed the Kyoto Protocol in order to conclude carbon trading schemes are nothing but money-making scams.

Sometimes people make things far more complicated than they really are. Ironically, they can't see the forest for the trees...

[Badjelly]

Hey Quasi, after you've finished Air Con, perhaps you should read this book:

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Poles-Apart/2553210/

Gareth Morgan couldn't decide whether he believed in climate change or not, so he hired the best international scientists to answer his questions and these are his findings. Combined with anecdotes from his own recent trips to Antarctica and the Arctic this is something completely unique in books about climate change - somebody who has approached the topic with an open mind, somebody who has the resources to explore such a topic and somebody who has personally investigated all of the issues.

So what was his conclusion? Read the book to find out.

[Finn]

Hey Quasi, after you've finished Air Con, perhaps you should read this book:

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Poles-Apart/2553210/

Gareth Morgan couldn't decide whether he believed in climate change or not, so he hired the best international scientists to answer his questions and these are his findings. Combined with anecdotes from his own recent trips to Antarctica and the Arctic this is something completely unique in books about climate change - somebody who has approached the topic with an open mind, somebody who has the resources to explore such a topic and somebody who has personally investigated all of the issues.

So what was his conclusion? Read the book to find out.

Riiiiiiight. Paid "experts" are never bias. Especially scientists.