The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bren]

Watching this on Prime tonight.....so we are being duped....makes ya think eh...they are saying that CO2 levels don't correlate with Global Warming...in fact average temps were falling post war whilst the CO2 levels were rising significantly...

[Flatcap]

Watching this on Prime tonight.....so we are being duped....makes ya think eh...they are saying that CO2 levels don't correlate with Global Warming...in fact average temps were falling post war whilst the CO2 levels were rising significantly...

The globe may (or may not) be warming, but it isn't due to us puny humans

[Terminated]

To what extent may the Earth's rotation around the sun, and the actual tilt of the earth [eg true north and magnetic north] impact upon climate change?

The extent to which there was an ice age, and now conversely a gradual shift in global temperature....I often wonder whether science, scientists and governments have an inside running on this sort of data and of course how any disinformation may be released.

Dang should write a novel but I think there is a good sci-fi film 'The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054790/

Heads Up and Enjoy [I think]

[fridayflash]

The globe may (or may not) be warming, but it isn't due to us puny humans
i totally agree! and it couldnt be anything to do with nasa's high
altitude nuclear testing in the 1950's,of course not!

[Quasievil]

If you ever want to find the truth about any thing in life, follow the money, scaring people into thinking global warming is due to humans and Co2 emissions = justification for new taxes, ie carbo credits and Kyoto B.S

And they are only just starting, wait for the tax on how many fridges you have how many T.V's the type of cars you have...........you Carbon fingerprint will be taxed, stay tuned I give it two years and WOLA !!!

And all those Greenies who think otherwise, your part of the propoganda machine and you are in support of the LIE's and DECEPETION, wake up and smell reality

[irishlad]

Sometimes its better to be conservative. We can control man made CO2 emmissions. So, we will. If global warming still continues we can then look at other factors.
CFC's eat ozone. Get rid of the bastards. Hopefully that big hole above us wil gradually heal.
We can't stop solar flares. All we can do is try to rule out other factors.

[Bren]

....I often wonder whether science, scientists and governments have an inside running on this sort of data and of course how any disinformation may be released.


The Iron Lady was apparently one of the leading forces on the push towards the cutdown of greenhouses gasses so that she could push the Nuclear Power issue as she did not trust the coalminers or middle eastern oil barons...
She twisted what the scientists of the day were saying to fit her own agenda...sound familiar? They are all tarred with the same brush...



I may not be the smatest fella, but I do not want to be a sheep either...

[irishlad]

If you ever want to find the truth about any thing in life, follow the money, scaring people into thinking global warming is due to humans and Co2 emissions = justification for new taxes, ie carbo credits and Kyoto B.S

And they are only just starting, wait for the tax on how many fridges you have how many T.V's the type of cars you have...........you Carbon fingerprint will be taxed, stay tuned I give it two years and WOLA !!!

And all those Greenies who think otherwise, your part of the propoganda machine and you are in support of the LIE's and DECEPETION, wake up and smell reality


I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I think you are on the ball, or close to it. But what if you are wrong? Fuck! Shit. Scary biscuits.

[dhunt]

If you ever want to find the truth about any thing in life, follow the money, scaring people into thinking global warming is due to humans and Co2 emissions = justification for new taxes, ie carbo credits and Kyoto B.S

Yip I think you have got it there.

What I didn't realise was how corrupt the global warming campaigners are. Changing reports and putting scientists names on reports that don't agree with the covered topics!!!!

[munterk6]

If the Earth is ever going to "warm", it will be because of an outside force..ie, a VERY large comet coming around on a long eliptical orbit of the Sun causing a discharge of the Solar capacitor, and in turn massive solar flares which interact and have a huge affect on the weather patterns on Earth. Expect to see more and more extreme weather events, increasing hurricane and cyclone/tornado activity.
The global warming scam is a great way for the corrupt rulers to kill two birds with one stone. To collect more and more taxes from the good citizens, and to keep us all in the dark about the REAL issues we as a planet are facing in the near future. The next agenda will be the total control of the water supply, the regulation, treatment(flouride and other toxic chemicals etc added) and distribution of water will be the next BIG control mechanism.
Meanwhile, we will all be distracted away from the inevitable truth of Armageddon and the End of the Age as we know it.

....makes a great read eh?:innocent:

[Winston001]

Unfortunately guys, the documentary was shallow and wrong. One of the scientists Carl Wunsch emailed the producers after he'd seen what they produced and said:


I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin,


For more info on a issue by issue deconstruction of this fraudulent program, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

[Magua]

CO2 levels don't correlate with Global Warming...in fact average temps were falling post war whilst the CO2 levels were rising significantly...

Could have something to do with the carbon lag? Carbon stays in the atmosphere for up to decades. What you might be seeing there could be reduced carbon due to the effect of the great depression and the resulting climb after due to ww2 and post war industrialization.

If you're a fan of GCMs (global climate models), this may prove interesting.

The black line represents observations and the other data is from GCMs. The top one shows all forcing, human, solar, volcanic etc, the bottom, just solar and volcanic. Notice how the observations line does not correlate with the model of just solar and volcanic.


And all those Greenies who think otherwise, your part of the propoganda machine and you are in support of the LIE's and DECEPETION, wake up and smell reality

And you base this on what?

[James Deuce]

I reckon, having just watched it, that that doco was about as credible as the conspiracy theory doco on whether we visited the moon or not.

Lots of sound bites. Lots of edited interviews.

The post doco debate was about as credible until beardy sandal man started making some good points, but then it went back to uninformed lefties and conservatives head butting.

[tri boy]

You Humans still think you matter.
Elvis was right. We should turn off your sun:blink:

[Swoop]

The only human input to "global warming" is:
Money, and
Power.

[yod]

I reckon, having just watched it, that that doco was about as credible as the conspiracy theory doco on whether we visited the moon or not.

Lots of sound bites. Lots of edited interviews.

The post doco debate was about as credible until beardy sandal man started making some good points, but then it went back to uninformed lefties and conservatives head butting.

correct - i watched the unedited version a few weeks ago and it had some interesting takes on the other "inconvenient" doco - both are about as bad as each other

i liked the woman in the middle (the 'climate consultant':laugh:) - i think her job was to interrupt the others as much as possible and she seemed to be very good at it

[Bullitt]

i liked the woman in the middle (the 'climate consultant':laugh:) - i think her job was to interrupt the others as much as possible and she seemed to be very good at it

Agreed, she was a total waste of space. Next she'll be standing for the Greens.

Everyone else had valid points except for her.

I would claim to be a skeptic but that would imply the hippies might be right:msn-wink:

[yod]

yeah there have been good points raised on both sides - i was a bit of a sceptic but have a little more faith in the IPCC now (only a little tho)

the chap from Waikato Uni (I think) had some good info

[Magua]

For those of us without prime, is it online?

[Mully]

I don't know what the truth is, but my thoughts are the planet has been heating and cooling for millions of years, without human intervention, and will continue to do so long after our species has nuked itself out of existence.

[zadok]

The globe may (or may not) be warming, but it isn't due to us puny humans


The only human input to "global warming" is:
Money, and Power.

My sentiments for a long time now.:corn:

[Maki]

Let's just say that we are irreversably changing our planets climate, causing mass extinctions and sea level rise. Let's also say we are already displacing millions of people because climate change is turning lands that used to support them into deserts. The evidence that this is happening is overwhelming and it stares anyone in the face if you care to look.

Of course the other scenario, the one Exxon is currently paying millions, or is it billions of $ to perpetuate, that we are not having any effect on our planet, after all we are just small, are we not? (In spite of the fact that we are pumping the best part of CO2 stored in the earth for millions of years back into the atmosphere). http://carbonx.blogspot.com/2006/10/exxon-funding-climate-change-denial.html

I prefer to believe the overwhelming evidence and I wish we could agree to work together to overcome this problem. The sad fact is however that most people who have a decent life today could care less about people elsewhere on the earth who's land is turning to desert or sinking into the sea. If it means a slight impact on our standard of living, like using the car or bike less, then we scream like offended two year olds and stick our fingers into our ears because we just don't want to know.

So, go ahead and believe the Exxon version. Just remember in the coming years that you are complicit in death, suffering and destruction on a scale rarely seen in the history of this planet. At least take responsibility for your stupid, irresponsible and selfish acts. I guess you won't, will you? Did you ever see a 2 year old take responsibility for anything?

[tri boy]

Sell ya bike then Maki

[James Deuce]

Hay Maki. Those deserts have been increasing in size thanks to the commencement of the agrarian economy(our biggest mistake and entirely the product of our imagination) and the creation of cities (our second biggest mistake) about 10000 years ago.

If you feel that strongly about it that you have to engage in the demeaning and insulting rhetoric of the uber greenie then why are you riding a motorcycle?

Everything about motorcycles from their production to their use should be anathema to someone with a properly green attitude.

You rather remind me of that Cindy woman on last night's debate. Lots of piss & vinegar and no substance to your argument except smug condescension. That'll convince people. Not.

[Jantar]

Let's just say that we are irreversably changing our planets climate, causing mass extinctions and sea level rise.
No, lets not play games of make believe, and instead lets say "Show us the data".


Let's also say we are already displacing millions of people because climate change is turning lands that used to support them into deserts.
No, lets not play games of make believe, and instead lets say "Show us the data".



The evidence that this is happening is overwhelming and it stares anyone in the face if you care to look.
I do look, and the evidence is just not there. First off, I have seen no evidence that climate change, and that includes the current cooling phase we are experiencing, is man made. Next, I have seen no evidence that anyone has been displaced because of climate change. Where is your data?



Of course the other scenario, the one Exxon is currently paying millions, or is it billions of $ to perpetuate, that we are not having any effect on our planet, after all we are just small, are we not? (In spite of the fact that we are pumping the best part of CO2 stored in the earth for millions of years back into the atmosphere). http://carbonx.blogspot.com/2006/10/exxon-funding-climate-change-denial.html
Well, I'm so pleased to learn just how much I am being paid by Exxon. When can I expect to see the cheque?

[Bullitt]

[QUOTE=Jim2;1589532]Hey Maki ....QUOTE]

:clap:

I had seen the film on a google hosted download about a year ago but I cant find the link to it right now.

Theres also a third school of thought. Which is even if humans are causing climate change (remember its not global warming now as the hippies want to be right no matter which direction things change) we can have so little impact on that effect without destroying the world economy we should put our efforts into reducing the impact of the negative effects rather than the negative effects themselves.

This paper by Nigel Lawson (former chancellor of the exchequer and also Nigella's father) is still rubbished by the climate change cult but to me it raises some valid points.

[Magua]

I do look, and the evidence is just not there. First off, I have seen no evidence that climate change, and that includes the current cooling phase we are experiencing, is man made. Next, I have seen no evidence that anyone has been displaced because of climate change. Where is your data?


What's your basis for disputing this?

[Pixie]

i totally agree! and it couldnt be anything to do with nasa's high
altitude nuclear testing in the 1950's,of course not!

Your joking aren't you?
The energy in the average thunderhead makes the largest thermonuclear bomb look like a fart

[James Deuce]

What's your basis for disputing this?

One graph produced by who?

Always check the source of your data. If the research is paid for by a government or an "Institute for Researching Climate Change and Producing Data for the Highest Bidder" then it is automatically disqualified as being valid.

The planet is either 4000 years old or 4 billion, depending on which loony you talk to. We've (the entire human race that is) been collecting very localised, piecemeal weather data reliably for about 160 years. The sample data is way too small to make any valid conclusions in either case.

[Flatcap]

Of course the other scenario, the one Exxon is currently paying millions, or is it billions of $ to perpetuate, that we are not having any effect on our planet, after all we are just small, are we not? (In spite of the fact that we are pumping the best part of CO2 stored in the earth for millions of years back into the atmosphere). http://carbonx.blogspot.com/2006/10/exxon-funding-climate-change-denial.html


So, go ahead and believe the Exxon version.


Well I say that the whole man-man C02 hysteria is being funded by the Nuclear Power industry to wrestle the profit off the oil barons.


So what do you want? C02 or radiation?





....no, I'm actually taking the piss....

[Pixie]

Let's just say that we are irreversably changing our planets climate, causing mass extinctions and sea level rise. Let's also say we are already displacing millions of people because climate change is turning lands that used to support them into deserts. The evidence that this is happening is overwhelming and it stares anyone in the face if you care to look.

Of course the other scenario, the one Exxon is currently paying millions, or is it billions of $ to perpetuate, that we are not having any effect on our planet, after all we are just small, are we not? (In spite of the fact that we are pumping the best part of CO2 stored in the earth for millions of years back into the atmosphere). http://carbonx.blogspot.com/2006/10/exxon-funding-climate-change-denial.html

I prefer to believe the overwhelming evidence and I wish we could agree to work together to overcome this problem. The sad fact is however that most people who have a decent life today could care less about people elsewhere on the earth who's land is turning to desert or sinking into the sea. If it means a slight impact on our standard of living, like using the car or bike less, then we scream like offended two year olds and stick our fingers into our ears because we just don't want to know.

So, go ahead and believe the Exxon version. Just remember in the coming years that you are complicit in death, suffering and destruction on a scale rarely seen in the history of this planet. At least take responsibility for your stupid, irresponsible and selfish acts. I guess you won't, will you? Did you ever see a 2 year old take responsibility for anything?

Won't you feel like a twat,when in 20 years,the dire predictions fail to materialise.

No one seems to remember the 1970's "coming iceage threat".
It was even mentioned in The Clash's "London Calling"

[Magua]

One graph produced by who?

Always check the source of your data. If the research is paid for by a government or an "Institute for Researching Climate Change and Producing Data for the Highest Bidder" then it is automatically disqualified as being valid.

The planet is either 4000 years old or 4 billion, depending on which loony you talk to. We've (the entire human race that is) been collecting very localised, piecemeal weather data reliably for about 160 years. The sample data is way too small to make any valid conclusions in either case.

Source = the IPCC. I can't remember the report number, but I shall check.

I think you'll find that there are some longer records than 160 years. Temperature reconstructions back to 1400 from grape harvest information (Chuine et al. 2004), number of snow days in Zurich back to 1690 (Pfister 1978 as cited in Bradley 1999), though this may well be associated with urbanisation (correlation is not causation etc etc). Not to mention the ice cores (vostok).

[Mike748]

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.

[Jantar]

What's your basis for disputing this?
Sorry, I can't read the detail. Please provide a link where I can see just what it is I am disputing?

[Naki Rat]

The post doco debate was about as credible until beardy sandal man started making some good points, but then it went back to uninformed lefties and conservatives head butting.

My concern was that the bearded guy (on the right, next to Eric Young) was full of his own opinions but continually talked over top of anybody who differed with his views, and he was/is a reviewer on the IPCC panel.

One eyed reviews = censorship!

And I was just waiting for the 'self-confessed confused' anti-sceptic dragon to state "can I just say this is the first time I have been on TV".

[James Deuce]

Source = the IPCC. I can't remember the report number, but I shall check.

I think you'll find that there are some longer records than 160 years. Temperature reconstructions back to 1400 from grape harvest information (Chuine et al. 2004), number of snow days in Zurich back to 1690 (Pfister 1978 as cited in Bradley 1999), though this may well be associated with urbanisation (correlation is not causation etc etc). Not to mention the ice cores (vostok).
IPCC automatically invalidates the data. It has been produced to prove a point.

Your second paragraph does not prove the point you think it does. It confirms mine. Localised unreliable climate records do not present a case for global warming.

We've only been looking at the global macro climate since the late '70s. 30 years. Reliable weather data collection including barometric pressure, rainfall, sunlight hours, and so on has only been a feature of data collection for less than 200 years and only used for very localised weather prediction. Even then, weather prediction is still 50/50 in accuracy and you're trying to prove that we know enough and have enough data to confirm that we can absolutely predict what the global weather will look like in 100 years?

The single biggest issue in the "Global Warming/Climate Change" argument is its lack of the consistent application of scientific method to analyse data.

The cooler weather of the '90s can be attributed to Mt Pinatubo and extended La Nina weather patterns in the Pacific. A single eruption of a volcano like Pinatubo does more to cool the climate than anything humans have "done" since the Industrial Revolution. But as beardy sandal man tried to point out last night every time we think we've come up with a solution to a climate problem (sulphates in fuel causing acid rain in Europe) we find that we didn't know what we were talking about and we create another problem by changing fuel composition.

[James Deuce]

My concern was that the bearded guy (on the right, next to Eric Young) was full of his own opinions but continually talked over top of anybody who differed with his views, and he was/is a reviewer on the IPCC panel.

One eyed reviews = censorship!

And I was just waiting for the 'self-confessed confused' anti-sceptic dragon to state "can I just say this is the first time I have been on TV".

I was talking about the other beardy chap in the track suit pants, but they wouldn't let him talk much because he kept answering using both common sense and the scientific method as a basis for his answers.

[Bullitt]

The sample data is way too small to make any valid conclusions in either case.

But didnt you see the programme. Even though there is no evidence for man made global warming in the past 4 billion years if you ignore the natural variation theres irrefutable evidence of it in the last 16 seconds:lol:

[Magua]

Sorry, I can't read the detail. Please provide a link where I can see just what it is I am disputing?

IPCC fourth report, page 39.

[Flatcap]

Regardless of whether the science is correct or not, an interesting point made in the program is that the anti-C02 environ-mentalists are in essence "anti-human".

Their policies will condemn the developing world (in particular Africa) to an existence without electricity and the industry that this enables.

[Ocean1]

I was talking about the other beardy chap in the track suit pants, but they wouldn't let him talk much because he kept answering using both common sense and the scientific method as a basis for his answers.

Dr Willem de Lange, University of Waikato, fwfw.

[Magua]

IPCC automatically invalidates the data. It has been produced to prove a point.

Your second paragraph does not prove the point you think it does. It confirms mine. Localised unreliable climate records do not present a case for global warming.

We've only been looking at the global macro climate since the late '70s. 30 years. Reliable weather data collection including barometric pressure, rainfall, sunlight hours, and so on has only been a feature of data collection for less than 200 years and only used for very localised weather prediction. Even then, weather prediction is still 50/50 in accuracy and you're trying to prove that we know enough and have enough data to confirm that we can absolutely predict what the global weather will look like in 100 years?

The single biggest issue in the "Global Warming/Climate Change" argument is its lack of the consistent application of scientific method to analyse data.

The cooler weather of the '90s can be attributed to Mt Pinatubo and extended La Nina weather patterns in the Pacific. A single eruption of a volcano like Pinatubo does more to cool the climate than anything humans have "done" since the Industrial Revolution. But as beardy sandal man tried to point out last night every time we think we've come up with a solution to a climate problem (sulphates in fuel causing acid rain in Europe) we find that we didn't know what we were talking about and we create another problem by changing fuel composition.

That was a poor retort by me. I'll find my information on removing inhomogeneity from the instrumental records and the blending of sea surface temperature with land temperature this evening. I've got a report to write today.

[MisterD]

The only thing we can conclusively say about global warming, is that it has rejuventated Al Gore's political career and bank balance.

[Naki Rat]

For those of us without prime, is it online?

There are at least a dozen copies of the Global Warming Swindle (original version) available as Torrent downloads, and while you're at it download "PROOF THAT 'THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE' WAS A SCAM" which is an Aussie debate regarding the doco in which the Global Warming propaganderists do a better job of shooting themselves in the foot than last night's IPCC goons.

Another good downloadable watch is "The End Of Suburbia" which presents an unarguable and very compelling case for the 'Peak Oil' situation. The world's limited oil reserves are going to very soon reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions far faster than Kyoto, carbon credits, or any other BS climate tax measures. And yes it also explains the case against the lunacy that is bio-fuels which is just another big business feel-good campaign much like carbon footprint propaganda!

If CO2 is such a threat why have the global warming gestapo not got on the case of brewers of wine and beer who produce sizeable quantities of CO2 in the brewing process, and then squirt the gas around with gay abandon purging vessels and carbonating beer/wine.

And lets not forget the thousands of tonnes of urea fertilizer our pastural farmers have grown so fond of? This stuff is manufactured from hydrocarbons to start with but then when applied to farmland it does a fine job of stimulating soil bacterial activity to consume soil organic matter which in essence 'burns off/oxidizes' the carbon content of soil thus producing CO2 and reducing topsoil depth. And that is the ammonium nitrate that isn't initially flashed off as ammonia to the atmosphere. A few belching sheep and cows are a minor concern compared to this process!

Humans are changing the Earth's climate to any degree of concern? Get real, we may be the dominant species but we are fooling ourselves if we think we really matter in the scheme of things.:oi-grr:

[Jantar]

IPCC fourth report, page 39.
On page 39 of the Synthesis report (not the full report) I have found the table of radiative forcing that is included in your jpg image, but not the graph. This table gives a single value for each of the gasses, rather than the formulae from whch the forcings are calculated. However, at the levels for 2005, I have no issue with the values presented, and as far as I know, I have never disputed that radiative forcing takes place.

That still doesn't answer what I asked though. Where is the evidence that man is causing climate change, and where is the evidence that climate change is forcing people to relocate?

[Maki]

That still doesn't answer what I asked though. Where is the evidence that man is causing climate change, and where is the evidence that climate change is forcing people to relocate?

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/a_hostile_climate.php

But I guess you don't want to know, do you?

[Patch]

try this website (https://www.predictweather.co.nz/#/home/) and click articles, it might open ya eyes, it might not.
Still alot of useful and interesting info there.


Over this last summer, as reported on a couple of radio stations I listen too (The Rock, and Hauraki) the metservice got 72% of their forecasts - wrong!! and yet they still have their jobs.


Lies and deception make them (gubbermint, big business) money.

[Skyryder]

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

[davereid]

What a perfect product carbon credits are.

You don't need to manufacture them, you don't need to store them.
You don't need to ship them to customers, they don't rot or corrode, and you don't have to insure them in case they are stolen or break.

You don't even have to refund the money if they don't work !

But you can trade them. Auction them, invest in them, and have futures markets based on them.

You can make a lot of money, just by clipping the ticket each time they move through your hands.

You would be hard pressed to sell this particular scam to an intelligent man. And there is not much point selling it to a fool, as he won't have any money.

But there is one place you can find a lot of fools, and a lot of money. Its called Parliament.

You only have to convince a few idiots and their government, and they will use force to make everyone your customer.

[Naki Rat]

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/a_hostile_climate.php

But I guess you don't want to know, do you?

The debate is not whether global warming is occurring so much as whether humans are a major (or even significant) contributing factor.

[Maki]

try this website (https://www.predictweather.co.nz/#/home/) and click articles, it might open ya eyes, it might not.
Still alot of useful and interesting info there.


Over this last summer, as reported on a couple of radio stations I listen too (The Rock, and Hauraki) the metservice got 72% of their forecasts - wrong!! and yet they still have their jobs.


Lies and deception make them (gubbermint, big business) money.

Why don't the f***ers who run that "website" look out the window! According to them it should be sunny or partly cloudy here with a max temp of 17! Actually it's pouring down with rain and the temp is 10 degrees!
The Metservice forecast is showers, and max 13. That's pretty much correct...

[Naki Rat]

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.


Skyryder

And molecule for molecule methane is 32 times as harmful as CO2 in terms of contributing to the greenhouse effect.

[Maki]

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.


Skyryder

Indeed, a spring of wisdom in a desert of ignorance and disinformation. Enhanced methane release due to warming created by higher levels of CO2 is a powerful positive feedback that could potentially create incredible devastation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2088-methane-prime-suspect-for-greatest-mass-extinction.html

"The release of massive clouds of methane from icy hydrates buried under shallow ocean floors is the leading suspect for the most devastating extinction in the fossil record, according to a new analysis."

[Magua]

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/a_hostile_climate.php

But I guess you don't want to know, do you?

Dafur may bare similarities to what happened elsewhere in the Sahel, more to do with carrying capacity than global climate change. Over intensive farming, removing vegetation, increasing albedo leading to less rainfall, leading to drought. Ever increasing populations in the area placing more stress on the environment during times of drought etc leading to more environmental harm.

[k14]

Ok, I have never tried to present myself as an expert but the one thing that stumps me is that CO2 makes up 0.054% (i think that is right) of the atmosphere. If that is correct, how could changing that by 0.001% have any impact on the earths temperature?? Is the global climate on that much of a knife edge?? Surely not!

[Jantar]

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/a_hostile_climate.php

But I guess you don't want to know, do you?

Thank you for that article, it makes interesting reading. Although it does raise the question over whether or not the Dafur conflict is the first war to be caused by global warming, it also has this wee gem


Marc Lavergne, a researcher with the French National Center for Scientific Research and former head of the Centre D'Etudes et de Documentation Universitaire Scientifique et Technique at the University of Khartoum, agrees. "The problem is not water shortage as such, and water shortages don't necessarily lead to war. The real problem is the lack of agricultural and other development policies to make the best use of available water resources since colonial times."

Those "colonial times" happened to be the end of the little ice age. So are you suggesting that man somehow ended the LIA?

[Indiana_Jones]

I see alot of graphs which mean nothing lol

EDIT: Also notice how it has changed from "global warming" to "Climate change" lol

-Indy

[Maki]

Thank you for that article, it makes interesting reading. Although it does raise the question over whether or not the Dafur conflict is the first war to be caused by global warming, it also has this wee gem



Those "colonial times" happened to be the end of the little ice age. So are you suggesting that man somehow ended the LIA?

Are you suggesting that since climate change that was not caused by man happened in earlier times, then climate change happening now could not possibly be caused by man? This leap of "logic" is much loved by the oil companies.

How do you feel about paying for lies and disinformation every time you fill your bike up with gas?

I am sure this will make your day:

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/

[Jantar]

Are you suggesting that since climate change that was not caused by man happened in earlier times, then climate change happening now could not possibly be caused by man? This leap of "logic" is much loved by the oil companies.
No, I'm not making such a claim. I am asking for evidence that climate change IS being caused by man. So far none has been provided.


How do you feel about paying for lies and disinformation every time you fill your bike up with gas?
What lies and disinformation am I paying for each time I fill my bike?


I am sure this will make your day:

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/ [/QUOTE]
This response is almost becoming a default. Can you explain just where Exxon fits into this debate? The fact that they made a profit just has nothing to do with whether or not man is affecting the climate.

[Skyryder]

Indeed, a spring of wisdom in a desert of ignorance and disinformation. Enhanced methane release due to warming created by higher levels of CO2 is a powerful positive feedback that could potentially create incredible devastation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2088-methane-prime-suspect-for-greatest-mass-extinction.html

"The release of massive clouds of methane from icy hydrates buried under shallow ocean floors is the leading suspect for the most devastating extinction in the fossil record, according to a new analysis."





You do not have to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that man made Co2emmisions have created global warming. It is true the the geological record shows flucuations in global temperture. Nowhere does the geological record show the speed of global warming that is occuring at the present time. Of a more serious nature is the depletion of the ozone layer. While this appears to have stabilised and recovered to a measurable degree the causes of the destruction of this layer is not in dispute. (It is interesting the at the time when CFC emissions were held respsonsible for the 'hole' this industry denied the overwhelming evidence. In many countries it required legislation to prohibit CFC as a propellant in airosol sprays Exactly the same denial is now taking place in respect to Co2 emissions by the industry that has a vested interest in the continuance for co2 use.)


Unless emissions are reduced there is always the possibility that the ozone depletion may continue. Should this occur that in itself would allow radiation particles to penetrate through our atmosphere with catostrophic increases in cancer and related illness.

Wake up guys you do not need experts to convince you one way or the other. Just look at our own climate change and receeding glaciers.

Skyryder

[Maki]

No, I'm not making such a claim. I am asking for evidence that climate change IS being caused by man. So far none has been provided.


Actually, it has but I guess you never noticed. There is a staggering amount of evidence available.

[Skyryder]

No, I'm not making such a claim. I am asking for evidence that climate change IS being caused by man. So far none has been provided.

Here's some.

http://www.ghgonline.org/humaninfluence.htm


Now it may be bullshit I don't know but untill someone can give an alterntive cause of global warming I'm going for man made on the speed of the climate change alone.


Skyryder

[dipshit]

To what extent may the Earth's rotation around the sun, and the actual tilt of the earth [eg true north and magnetic north] impact upon climate change?
The extent to which there was an ice age, and now conversely a gradual shift in global temperature.

Yes there are natural cycles that have been going on for millions of years.

The trouble is man-made changes that are *compounding to a natural warming cycle* that is creating an unprecedented rise in CO2 that the earth has probably never experienced before.

The consequences of reaching a tipping point to a runaway effect are so severe to life as we know it, it makes any sacrifices and hardships we need to go through now seem pale in comparison.

Usually the cry of "global warming is a conspiracy" is started by redneck Americans that don't want to give up their pickups and SUVs.

[avgas]

Global warming is a hoax, the planet dying is not.
But no - don't think for yourselves, thats to hard. Follow the rest of the sheep, pay your power bills and live on the dream the supply is continuous and infinite. Burn petrol while you pay into pockets of fat ugly greedy men. Pump crap into the atmosphere like no tomorrow cos you only have to think about you and not your kids future.
Shit it worked for china.

[munterk6]

everyones a scientist eh....wheww, never knew we had such a wealth of knowlege on this forum. I'll get ma coat.:beer:

[Ocean1]

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that man made Co2emmisions have created global warming.

Correct. You have to be an Idiot.


The trouble is man-made changes that are *compounding to a natural warming cycle* that is creating an unprecedented rise in CO2 that the earth has probably never experienced before.

Unprecedented? Since last week? Check your facts.

[Jantar]

... Just look at our own climate change and receeding glaciers.

Skyryder

OK. You set me a challenge with this, so I have just spent the better part of an afternoon doing just that. I went to the NIWA Climate Database http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/ (anyone can register to obtain data) and checked for a rural temperature station with the longest complete record. Hokitika fits the bill with just 2 data items missing since 1884.

Here is that data. There has been no warming in Hokitika.

As for the Glaciers. I'll next see if I can find the research by Dr Jim Salinger where he shows that NZ's glaciers are advancing, not retreating.


Edit: I should add that the Hokitika site changed from Hokitika South to the airport in 1964. The airport site is an average of 0.26C warmer than the south site, so for accuracy I should have modified the chart by -0.26 from 1964 to 2008.

[Maki]

OK. You set me a challenge with this, so I have just spent the better part of an afternoon doing just that. I went to the NIWA Climate Database http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/ (anyone can register to obtain data) and checked for a rural temperature station with the longest complete record. Hokitika fits the bill with just 2 data items missing since 1884.

Here is that data. There has been no warming in Hokitika.

As for the Glaciers. I'll next see if I can find the research by Dr Jim Salinger where he shows that NZ's glaciers are advancing, not retreating.

They called it global warming, and not warming in Hokitika for a reason...

NZs glaciers are not just retreating, some of them are disappearing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476881

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10505856

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/earth/17glacier.html

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

etc. etc....

[dipshit]

Unprecedented? Since last week? Check your facts.

Well if like in the graph i posted - if in the last 400,000 years CO2 hasn't risen past 300ppm and then suddenly we find ourselves at 375ppm, i would say that was unusual.

What facts are you talking about?

[Hitcher]

Whether or not you "believe" the global warming science or not, living more sustainably makes a lot of sense, surely?

[Maki]

Whether or not you "believe" the global warming science or not, living more sustainably makes a lot of sense, surely?

Not to some people apparently... They tend to angrily denounce anything that they see as a threat to their current "lifestyle".

[Jantar]

Whether or not you "believe" the global warming science or not, living more sustainably makes a lot of sense, surely?
I agree 100%. But that is a totally diferent discussion to the one about whether or not man is changing the climate.

[jrandom]

Whether or not you "believe" the global warming science or not, living more sustainably makes a lot of sense, surely?

I heartily agree, and note in addition that you are leading the way by riding a motorcycle of smaller cubic capacity and greater fuel economy than mine.

I am ashamed.

[dipshit]

Here is that data. There has been no warming in Hokitika.

Hokitika is coastal and is largely going to be influenced by ocean temperatures. Try looking up some inland areas.




As for the Glaciers. I'll next see if I can find the research by Dr Jim Salinger where he shows that NZ's glaciers are advancing, not retreating.

Only two glaciers have been advancing recently. Fox and Franz Josef. Why? Because they are short period glaciers that only take 5 years or so from snowfall to terminus. Short-term increases in snowfall will see them advancing.

Bigger glaciers however like the Tasman which is 800 years from snowfall to terminus has been steadily retreating, showing the longer overall trend.

[scott411]

Whether or not you "believe" the global warming science or not, living more sustainably makes a lot of sense, surely?

very good point, but i do not see how 'carbon trading' or the Kyoto protocol is going to fix the problem, it is just another tax

[dipshit]

Well if like in the graph i posted - if in the last 400,000 years CO2 hasn't risen past 300ppm and then suddenly we find ourselves at 375ppm, i would say that was unusual.

And by the way, the difference between 300ppm and 200ppm is the difference between warm periods and ice ages.

[Maki]

very good point, but i do not see how 'carbon trading' or the Kyoto protocol is going to fix the problem, it is just another tax

The only way to fix the problem is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel, coal, gas and oil being taken out of the ground. All of that is inevitably going to be burned and CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere. We can carbon trade until we are blue in the face but it is not going to do us any good while we export coal, gas and oil to other countries. Global warming is a GLOBAL problem.

So, are we going to stop coal mining and gas and oil drilling? I never heard auntie Helen say a word about that. Not the greens either for that matter....

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone???
LOL

[davereid]

very good point, but i do not see how 'carbon trading' or the Kyoto protocol is going to fix the problem, it is just another tax

Exactly. Kyoto won't help a bloody thing, all it will do is cost.

We will freeze our old people because they can't use coal or afford electricty.

We will starve the poor as we divert croplands to biofuels, while tons of oil and coal goes unused.

But the best bit ?

Normal kiwis who ARE environmentally aware will tred carefully.
We will think very hard before we flood a valley in case we are destroying the environment. We will think very hard before we use nuclear energy to generate power.

And the government will take our money, and it will end up in Estonia or some other ex iron curtain state.

Cos, in Estonia they don't give a damn about the environment. They will just flood any valley they want. They'll chuck up cheap dirty nukes, and we will pay them to do it.

[Jantar]

Hokitika is coastal and is largely going to be influenced by ocean temperatures. Try looking up some inland areas.
....

It is because Hokitika is both a rural and a coastal site that it is used as a reference site internationally. But that's fine, I'll do the same for any long term rural site you care to name. I can't be bothered dealing with urban sites as it'll take too long to isolate the Urban Heat Island eefect.

[dipshit]

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone??? LOL

Sadly that is about the only real alternative we have at the moment. Yet ironically because the greens don't like nuclear power and have been resisting it for the last 30 years, the world has continued to use vast amounts of fossil fuel.

[dipshit]

But that's fine, I'll do the same for any long term rural site you care to name.

Your town of Alex or somewhere nearby would be as good as any.

[Jantar]

Well if like in the graph i posted - if in the last 400,000 years CO2 hasn't risen past 300ppm and then suddenly we find ourselves at 375ppm, i would say that was unusual.

What facts are you talking about?

Yes, an interesting graph. But totally debunked in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology (Spring/Summer 2007) as attached.

[FJRider]

Manurewa MUST be rural, judging by the number of 4 wheel drives there.

[Hitcher]

I agree 100%. But that is a totally diferent discussion to the one about whether or not man is changing the climate.

Or whether the amount of time, effort and money that's being invested in "climate change" would be better invested on things that make a real difference, such as the fight against poverty, hunger and disease.

[dipshit]

Yes, an interesting graph. But totally debunked in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology (Spring/Summer 2007) as attached.

"About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps
even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s
climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at
that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004). However, geologic evidence
suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.”
Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such
enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from
which our bodies and all living creatures are built
(Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a
dangerous “pollutant.”"


Oh brother! Yes 2 billion years ago CO2 levels were high. But unless you want all life on earth to consist of nothing more than the slime that lives on rocks or in puddles that converted the CO2 into oxygen over millions of years - then I would suggest we don't go back there.

Was this scientist funded by the American pickup truck association?

[Skyryder]

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone???
LOL


Nope. Geothermal.


Worked on Wairakei in the 60's. Word then from the MOW geologists on site that NZ had enough geothermal energy to power all NZ. It's just that dams were cheaper.


Skyyrder

[Magua]

Your second paragraph does not prove the point you think it does. It confirms mine. Localised unreliable climate records do not present a case for global warming.


Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature
Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset
N. A. RAYNER, P. BROHAN, D. E. PARKER, C. K. FOLLAND, J. J. KENNEDY, M. VANICEK, T. J. ANSELL,
AND S. F. B. TETT
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Land surface air temperature and surface sea temperature (ever more data as the trade routes expanded) blended to get the global picture.
Regional means calculated (hemispheric etc)
Several studies, near identical data.
Check out Jones and Moberg (2003), Brohan et al. (2006) (www.cru.uea.ac.uk)
Hansen etl al. (2001) updated 2005.

Not such a limited dataset as you thought.

A lot of the inhomogeneity through different weather screens pre adoption of the universal screen (stevenson I think) can been removed and has been (with associated margins of error) by comparing screens, then adjustments to the instrumental record can be made.

[98tls]

This guys got the answer.http://www.tlzone.net/forums/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miloop.se%2Ffilm_view.a spx%3Fmm%3D5%26movie%3D9108

[N1CK]

Ok, I have never tried to present myself as an expert but the one thing that stumps me is that CO2 makes up 0.054% (i think that is right) of the atmosphere. If that is correct, how could changing that by 0.001% have any impact on the earths temperature?? Is the global climate on that much of a knife edge?? Surely not!
:niceone:

I also want to know.

And the Co2 levels are actually 0.0383%, But main part of greenhouse gases is not Co2, but water vapor!

The most powerful greenhouse gases are
- water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
- carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
- methane, which causes 4–9%
ozone, which causes 3–7%

And like they said on the doco – The earth goes through cycles where it warms for 30 years and then cools for 30 years and it has been doing this for thousands of years!

Its a load of Bull $h!t, money makes the world go around.

[Mully]

This guys got the answer.http://www.tlzone.net/forums/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miloop.se%2Ffilm_view.a spx%3Fmm%3D5%26movie%3D9108

You did post it here!!! Bwahahaha.

Must spread some bling before blinging you again.

[Naki Rat]

But the best bit ?

Normal kiwis who ARE environmentally aware will tred carefully.
We will think very hard before we flood a valley in case we are destroying the environment. We will think very hard before we use nuclear energy to generate power.

And the government will take our money, and it will end up in Estonia or some other ex iron curtain state.



Aunty Helen and co have just completed a Free Trade Agreement with China, a country that is presently commissioning an average of 2 coal fired power stations each week. And we are exporting some of that coal to them.

Hypocritical NZ government to say the least!

[Ocean1]

Or whether the amount of time, effort and money that's being invested in "climate change" would be better invested on things that make a real difference, such as the fight against poverty, hunger and disease.

Poverty? Hunger? Get a job.

Disease? Get a job as a medical practitioner or researcher.

[Skyryder]

Poor sound and speaker has a strong accent that at times is difficult to understand but he debunks the Global Swindle with ease. Lengthy but worth looking at.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Poor sound and speaker has a strong accent that at times is difficult to understand but he debunks the Global Swindle with ease. Lengthy but worth looking at.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573


Skyryder


And more.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php


Seems to me the ones swindled were those that believed the Global Warming Swindle.

I never bothered to watch it. The title said it all.


Skyryder

[Swoop]

What a perfect product carbon credits are.

But you can trade them. Auction them, invest in them, and have futures markets based on them.

You can make a lot of money, just by clipping the ticket each time they move through your hands.

You would be hard pressed to sell this particular scam to an intelligent man.
It sounds like the person who invented this scheme will get quite wealthy from it.

Can anyone else say "Pyramid scheme"?
Illegal in some places.:whistle:

[Maki]

Poor sound and speaker has a strong accent that at times is difficult to understand but he debunks the Global Swindle with ease. Lengthy but worth looking at.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573


Skyryder

That's an excellent video, thanks.

[Winston001]

What a perfect product carbon credits are.

You don't need to manufacture them, you don't need to store them.
You don't need to ship them to customers, they don't rot or corrode, and you don't have to insure them in case they are stolen or break.

You don't even have to refund the money if they don't work !

But you can trade them. Auction them, invest in them, and have futures markets based on them.

You can make a lot of money, just by clipping the ticket each time they move through your hands.

You would be hard pressed to sell this particular scam to an intelligent man. And there is not much point selling it to a fool, as he won't have any money.

But there is one place you can find a lot of fools, and a lot of money. Its called Parliament.

You only have to convince a few idiots and their government, and they will use force to make everyone your customer.

Nice (if cynical) analysis.

I have my doubts about carbon trading too but leaving that aside:

1. The concept is if you are releasing carbon, you buy a "tonne" of carbon from somebody else who is locking it up. Plantations of trees, native bush regeneration, tussock lands etc. Carbon (soot) can be pumped deep underground too.

2. The carbon seller needs to insure the plantation whatever because if it burns up, the carbon is released. Bummer. :D

3. About 3 years ago Christchurch City sold carbon tonnes to a Dutch company for the carbon being recaptured by it's waste recycling system. So carbon trading is real and already happens.

[moT]

I Say We Should Encourage Global Warming Burn As Many Tyres And Use As Many Arosol Cans As You Can I Hate The Frking Cold Winters.

[Pwalo]

Come on guys get with the program. Both Big Fat Al Gore's documentary and the "Global Swindle" doco are old news. It's called "Climate Change" now, and it seems as if the real world just won't conform to the lovely computer models that have been predicting warming.

It seems that the good old planet has actually been getting colder (slightly, anyway) for the last ten years. I believe that has been mesasured, and is not a model, which makes it a little more convincing.

I get the feeling that a lot of people are getting conservation and green politics somewhat confused. Most people wouldn't argue against conservation of resources, but I'm not so convinced about the reasoning behind global warming, and the implicit belief in computer models.

[Magua]

It seems that the good old planet has actually been getting colder (slightly, anyway) for the last ten years. I believe that has been mesasured, and is not a model, which makes it a little more convincing.


IPCC Fourth Report (2007). 10 of the last eleven years (1995 to 2006) were observed to be the warmest on record since 1850.


Use As Many Arosol Cans As You Can I Hate The Frking Cold Winters.

Aerosols = cooling :yes:

[peasea]

The globe may (or may not) be warming, but it isn't due to us puny humans

Yup, global warming and cooling is cyclical and occurs naturally. Ice ages come and go. It's just scaremongering and a tax grab.

[Pwalo]

[QUOTE=Magua;1591211]IPCC Fourth Report (2007). 10 of the last eleven years (1995 to 2006) were observed to be the warmest on record since 1850.

No, I'm pretty sure that the results have shown it's getting colder. I'll see if I can get the reports.

The IPCC reports don't enjoy the highest of reputations for accuracy.

[Jantar]

Come on guys get with the program. Both Big Fat Al Gore's documentary and the "Global Swindle" doco are old news. It's called "Climate Change" now, and it seems as if the real world just won't conform to the lovely computer models that have been predicting warming.

It seems that the good old planet has actually been getting colder (slightly, anyway) for the last ten years. I believe that has been mesasured, and is not a model, which makes it a little more convincing.

I get the feeling that a lot of people are getting conservation and green politics somewhat confused. Most people wouldn't argue against conservation of resources, but I'm not so convinced about the reasoning behind global warming, and the implicit belief in computer models.


IPCC Fourth Report (2007). 10 of the last eleven years (1995 to 2006) were observed to be the warmest on record since 1850.



Aerosols = cooling :yes:

Its another case where the IPCC report doesn't agree with observed facts.

The 1st attachment shows the latest rankings from NASA, and the 2nd attachment is the monthly temperature anomalies ever since MSU satellites were launched, along with a graph of the last 120 months (10 years) data.

[SPman]

Global warming is a hoax, the planet dying is not.

The other way around, if anything - the planet won't die - it'll shrug it's shoulders over 10-100-1000 decades and get on with whatever it was doing.Might not be very pleasant for humans, but, so what!

I have my doubts about carbon trading too but leaving that aside:
Carbon trading is a cynical scheme by big business to make money out of the whole deal by off loading their crap onto others - mainly the poor schmucks at the bottom of the food chain, like you and me.

Usual story - its a cold week, or month, so, global warming is crap.
When the ice sheets slide into the ocean and the methane starts bubbling into the atmosphere, life as we now it is gone! Who cares if it's normal or human induced - once it's happened, there's no going back! - bullshit programs like The Great Global Warming Swindle,at least, I suppose, engender more heated debate about the subject.
Notice how it's the smug, conservative fat cats, often those more responsible for mass emissions, who deny and denigrate the most........

[MisterD]

Notice how it's the smug, conservative fat cats, often those more responsible for mass emissions, who deny and denigrate the most........

I don't notice that at all. When someone I instinctively trust as a scientist and environmentalist, ie David Bellamy, says the science is dubious...that, I notice.

[Jantar]

.....
When the ice sheets slide into the ocean and the methane starts bubbling into the atmosphere, life as we now it is gone! ........

Have you worked out what average Antartic temerature is required for the ice sheets to start sliding into the ocean? Have you compared that to the current average Antatic temperature? What is the rise in temperature required?

Now, using the radiate forcing formula, Have you calculated how much greenhouse gas would have to be in the atmosphere for that to happen?

Maybe you can see that all of mankind would have suffocated first.

[Mikkel]

Well, whether the presence and actions of humans on earth has any impact or not is without question - it has!
Whether the order of magnitude of this impact is significant compared to natural cycles is much harder to answer.

However, I am absolutely certain that if we put our minds to the task we could fuck up this planet quite nicely! Nukes, toxic gas, mutagens, hormones, etc...

Considering that, I think it is very important to ask the opposite questions:

A. Can we fuck up this planet quite nicely if we DON'T put out minds to the task?
B. If so, can we prevent this fuck up from happening if we put in an effort?

Those are not easy questions to answer.

Further, whether climate change is natural or man-induced they are likely to cause a lot of havoc upon the way we live our lives. Wide spread famine could become a very real problem in our lifetime. As such I think it is imperative that we come to understand exactly how this works - but the global weather system is both a huge and a chaotic system to analyse. Just because there are no clear answers today doesn't mean we ought to just throw up our arms and keep on consuming at an ever accelerating rate.

But fat chance that humanity is going to own up and take responsibility for their own actions. Taxation is the most obvious tool to enforce a change in behaviour in any free, capitalism driven society. If indeed there were no real concerns about whether pollution might have a negative impact I don't think you'd see anyone trying to impose e.g. emission restrictions since they are bad for overall productivity.

[SPman]

Have you worked out what average Antartic temerature is required for the ice sheets to start sliding into the ocean? Have you compared that to the current average Antartic temperature? What is the rise in temperature required?

Now, using the radiate forcing formula, Have you calculated how much greenhouse gas would have to be in the atmosphere for that to happen?

Maybe you can see that all of mankind would have suffocated first.Scientists are already finding water layers under the ice sheets, ice sheets are thinning, and larger and larger chunks are already breaking off into the oceans. Arctic/antarctic sea temps are rising........
It honestly doesn't worry me, but I find the whole "knickers in a twist, we're all gonna die - no we aren't, it's bullshit" show, fascinating.
We're sticking in solar panels for power, ensuring water viability of the property (Wet Aus is getting drier out our way) and watching the show......

[Jantar]

Well, whether the presence and actions of humans on earth has any impact or not is without question - it has!
But the question here is not whether or not humans are affecting the planet, of course we are. The question is whether or not humans are affecting the climate. So far there is no physical evidence for that proposition, only modelled evidence. Yet those same models are known to be unable to even predict what is happening right now, so that evidence is invalid. If the models could be trusted then this next sentence wouldn't even be needed:

Whether the order of magnitude of this impact is significant compared to natural cycles is much harder to answer.


However, I am absolutely certain that if we put our minds to the task we could fuck up this planet quite nicely! Nukes, toxic gas, mutagens, hormones, etc...

Considering that, I think it is very important to ask the opposite questions:

A. Can we fuck up this planet quite nicely if we DON'T put out minds to the task?
B. If so, can we prevent this fuck up from happening if we put in an effort?

Those are not easy questions to answer.

Now you are getting to the point on which there is no disagreement. Yes we can fuck up the planet big time, and industrial pollution is one way we can do it quickly.



Further, whether climate change is natural or man-induced they are likely to cause a lot of havoc upon the way we live our lives. Wide spread famine could become a very real problem in our lifetime. As such I think it is imperative that we come to understand exactly how this works - but the global weather system is both a huge and a chaotic system to analyse. Just because there are no clear answers today doesn't mean we ought to just throw up our arms and keep on consuming at an ever accelerating rate.

Two totally seperate issues. By confusing climate change claims with consumerism we are likely to end up making things worse.


But fat chance that humanity is going to own up and take responsibility for their own actions. Taxation is the most obvious tool to enforce a change in behaviour in any free, capitalism driven society. If indeed there were no real concerns about whether pollution might have a negative impact I don't think you'd see anyone trying to impose e.g. emission restrictions since they are bad for overall productivity.

It is time to set out clearly just what malady we are talking about, climate change or pollution. They are not the same issue.

[Jantar]

Scientists are already finding water layers under the ice sheets, ice sheets are thinning, and larger and larger chunks are already breaking off into the oceans. Arctic/antarctic sea temps are rising........
It honestly doesn't worry me, but I find the whole "knickers in a twist, we're all gonna die - no we aren't, it's bullshit" show, fascinating.
We're sticking in solar panels for power, ensuring water viability of the property (Wet Aus is getting drier out our way) and watching the show......

Of course scientists are finding water layers under the ice sheets. Simple physical chemistry 101 will tell you about the triple point of states of matter, and for any given ice sheet at a given temperature a water layer will exist once the ice reaches a ceratin depth. Nothing magic about that. However I am interested in your assertion that Artic/Antartic sea temperatures are rising, as all the data I've seen shows that they are currently falling. Can you point me to the actual data showing that they are currently rising?

[peasea]

I'm lovin' this thread, it's a good/healthy debate.

I'm no scientist and I do care for mother earth; I have two children and I'd like to think I'm going to leave them something to enjoy by way of a planet but you have to admit, the politicians (especially the green variety) have really jumped on a bandwagon with the whole global warming/climate change thing and I smell a rat.

At times the scientists seem to collect so much freakin' data they not only baffle the plebs with bullshit, they baffle themselves.

I recycle what I can, keep the machines in good tune, wear sunblock and a hat and don't chop down trees, especially when a politician is hanging from one of them. Do your bit, clean up after yourself, turn the tap off when you're brushing your teeth and enjoy all sunsets as you can.

Any one of them might be your last.

Global warming is bullshit, climate change isn't our fault.
Al Gore; fuck off and take Helen and Kyoto with you..........

[Magua]

Yet those same models are known to be unable to even predict what is happening right now, so that evidence is invalid. If the models could be trusted then this next sentence wouldn't even be needed:

I think you'll find that models can model current climate reasonably well. One thing they have not been able to model however is ENSO.


Its another case where the IPCC report doesn't agree with observed facts.

The 1st attachment shows the latest rankings from NASA, and the 2nd attachment is the monthly temperature anomalies ever since MSU satellites were launched, along with a graph of the last 120 months (10 years) data.

Links to where this data came from?

[SPman]

Can you point me to the actual data showing that they are currently rising? Can't find it at the moment. (I'm meant to be working)
However:- New Scientist, April 25 2008
Arctic ice at its maximum in March, but that maximum is declining by 44,000 km² per year on average, the NSIDC has calculated (see graph, ).What is more, the extent of the ice is only half the picture. Satellite images show that most of the Arctic ice at the moment is thin, young ice (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/03/70-of-arctic-ice-is-new-and-unstable.html) that has only been around since last autumn.........What is worrying, though, is the fact that multi-year ice – the stuff that doesn't melt in the summer – is not piling up as fast as Arctic ice generally is melting.

I think the interesting aspect of Global warming, is the age old conundrum of - "the more we know, the less we know". Not all signature events of global warming are necessarily caused by global warming, but it's fun watching the scientists work their butts off trying to work out what is happening.

Global warming is bullshit, climate change isn't our fault.
Al Gore; fuck off and take Helen and Kyoto with you..........

It ain't bullshit, the current episode sure isn't helped by the amount of shit we've been spewing into the environment the last 150 yrs, Al Gore - opportunist, Helen - past her use by date, Kyoto, a neccesary response, hijacked by the corporates to offload blame and make money at our expense, whilst paying lipservice to the whole scenario.

[Magua]

Its another case where the IPCC report doesn't agree with observed facts.

The 1st attachment shows the latest rankings from NASA, and the 2nd attachment is the monthly temperature anomalies ever since MSU satellites were launched, along with a graph of the last 120 months (10 years) data.

More info from NASA, GISS.

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

[peasea]

[QUOTE=SPman;1591481]


It ain't bullshit, QUOTE]


I disagree, and opinions are what makes this an interesting debate

[Flatcap]

More info from NASA, GISS.

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

But the measurements began in 1982.

Like saying this May was the warmest May since last June

[Magua]

But the measurements began in 1982.

Like saying this May was the warmest May since last June

"Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century."

[Jantar]

I think you'll find that models can model current climate reasonably well. One thing they have not been able to model however is ENSO.

Links to where this data came from?

As ENSO is one of the major drivers of climate, how can it be that the models can model current climate reasonably well? Maybe that is why not a single CCM has predicted the current cooling.

However, the MSU data is available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

The NASA data was part of a large pdf document that I receved via email. It was too large to upload the entire file so I copied the relevent section to word. Raw data is available from the NASA database, but you will need to register as a climate data user to obtain it.

[Jantar]

But the measurements began in 1982.

Like saying this May was the warmest May since last June

Actual measurements began in late 1978.

[Magua]

The NASA data was part of a large pdf document that I receved via email. It was too large to upload the entire file so I copied the relevent section to word. Raw data is available from the NASA database, but you will need to register as a climate data user to obtain it.

It says GISS on that nasa data. Goddard Institute of Space Studies, yet the info I've found on their website is not consistent with the info you have presented.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
Five warmest years since 1890.

[Bonez]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

[Indiana_Jones]

It's on the internets! it's true! We're all dead!!!

ahhhhhhhhhhh!

-Indy

[N1CK]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

No its the humans i tell you!

Oh, wait...hold on :sweatdrop

[Jantar]

It says GISS on that nasa data. Goddard Institute of Space Studies, yet the info I've found on their website is not consistent with the info you have presented.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
Five warmest years since 1890.

I must confess that comment and link caught me by suprise, and having just arrived home from the motorcycle Club meeting I suspected I'd have to bookmark the link and return to it tomorrow. Fortunately, the reason for difference was soon apparent. Your link is dated 20070208, but in August 2007 it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. See http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=30

NASA refer to this in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html but minimise the impact by saying the global correction was less than 3/1000 of a degree. In march this year they commented. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').
But the important thing to note is that all of this discussion is based purely on SURFACE TEMPERATURE records. The data presented to me, and that I have included earlier is a combination of sea, surface and satellite data. This also fits better with the MSU satellite data.

[Skyryder]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html


You decide, but bear in mind "You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink."



http://www.benzworld.org/forums/off-topic/1328424-recent-global-warming-sun-activity-not-linked-scientists-say.html

Skyryder

[Patar]

I have a question because quite frankly I don't care much for the debate on global warming and whether or not it really is happening. Any kid with an I.Q of 27 can slap together a graph showing what ever the hell it is he wants it to show, I'll make you all a graph showing that global temperatures are a function of underwear purchases.




The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?

The culture of waste adopted by, well, every single country in the world today is bad. You can spin it 34 ways from yesterday but bottom line is humans need to change.
If what is required to instigate a change to environmentally friendly technologies and lifestyles is scaring the general public with global warming, then so fucking be it.

[Winston001]

Ok, just for a breather, Dennis Dutton and his team who run Arts and Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com/ - news clipping site used world wide) are smart cookies. And they couldn't make head nor tail of the climate change debate.

So they set up http://climatedebatedaily.com/ which takes no sides. It simply lists articles and reports from both ends and lets you make your own assessment.

Beyond that, RealClimate is run by climatologists who know what they are talking about. http://www.realclimate.org/

[hellkat]

I agree that the general public could do with a bit of a memory jog about how to be better at recycling, looking at what is happening to the remaining natural habitats and resources left in the world, and stuff like that.

Sadly, I think many MANY people are hearing that the global warming thing is not so much 'our' fault as we have been led to believe, and are not taking a lot of notice any more.

But we really certainly could do with having people still believing that environmental stuff is a positive thing to do, rather than than they aren't able to make a difference, and keep throwing away more trash, wasting more resources, etc.

[Jantar]

The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?

The culture of waste adopted by, well, every single country in the world today is bad. You can spin it 34 ways from yesterday but bottom line is humans need to change.
If what is required to instigate a change to environmentally friendly technologies and lifestyles is scaring the general public with global warming, then so fucking be it.
A different debate and for a different reason. Go back to posts #107 & 109.

[Skyryder]

I have a question because quite frankly I don't care much for the debate on global warming and whether or not it really is happening. Any kid with an I.Q of 27 can slap together a graph showing what ever the hell it is he wants it to show, I'll make you all a graph showing that global temperatures are a function of underwear purchases.

The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?



Graphs are based on data. That data has to be based recorded in an accurate and verifiable manner if the graph is going to have any relevance to what it purports.
Sure you can show a graph related to temperture changes and underwear purposes but what is the relevance if the data is wrong and unrelated.

The history of man is that he does not change unless circumstances force him to do so. Global warming is a new 'threat' that poses substantial changes to our modern society. Misplaced science that proposes natural causes for global warming just makes it that more harder for changes to occur.

My geneation is not going to see the full effects of this as we will all be dead. But you can be sure that we will get the blame, not necessarily for its cause but for doing 'nothing' about it.

Skyryder

[skidMark]

To what extent may the Earth's rotation around the sun, and the actual tilt of the earth [eg true north and magnetic north] impact upon climate change?

The extent to which there was an ice age, and now conversely a gradual shift in global temperature....I often wonder whether science, scientists and governments have an inside running on this sort of data and of course how any disinformation may be released.

Dang should write a novel but I think there is a good sci-fi film 'The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054790/

Heads Up and Enjoy [I think]


I still reckon the whole world revolves around me.:cool:

[Jantar]

...Beyond that, RealClimate is run by climatologists who know what they are talking about. http://www.realclimate.org/

The dutton site is a really good one in that it has data and comment from both sides of the debate.

The realclimate site is not so good. It is run by a group of climate scientists led by Michael Mann. The same scientist who has been discredited for his work on the hockey stick temperature curve. He was lead author for the IPCC, and reviewer of his own work. Then it came out that he used a mathmatical model that would produce a hockey stick irrespective of what data was used. In addition the data that he did use was cherry picked, and altered to give the result he desired. His work is no longer used by the IPCC. So if you wish to call this a site run by Climate Scientists, then you are technically correct, but other scientists no longer honour Mann with that title.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

[Patar]

Graphs are based on data. That data has to be based recorded in an accurate and verifiable manner if the graph is going to have any relevance to what it purports.
Sure you can show a graph related to temperture changes and underwear purposes but what is the relevance if the data is wrong and unrelated.

The history of man is that he does not change unless circumstances force him to do so. Global warming is a new 'threat' that poses substantial changes to our modern society. Misplaced science that proposes natural causes for global warming just makes it that more harder for changes to occur.



Graphs, just like statistics are highly influence by what the person creating them wants to show, it is purely dependent on what data is selected for use. We all know how often pretty pictures are used by campaigners on both sides of the argument.


Personally I don't know, nor do I really care if global warming is actually happening. That does not mean I don't make an effort to reduce wastage and choose to use the most efficient option where I can.
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.

[Skyryder]

Graphs, just like statistics are highly influence by what the person creating them wants to show, it is purely dependent on what data is selected for use. We all know how often pretty pictures are used by campaigners on both sides of the argument.


Personally I don't know, nor do I really care if global warming is actually happening. That does not mean I don't make an effort to reduce wastage and choose to use the most efficient option where I can.
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.

I'm not in any kind of disagreement with you on this but as I have said in my earlier post if change is going to happen then there needs to be a reason.
Doco's such as the 'Swindle' that purport a natural explanation for global warming just make the 'accepatance' for change so much harder.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

The realclimate site is not so good. It is run by a group of climate scientists led by Michael Mann. The same scientist who has been discredited for his work on the hockey stick temperature curve. He was lead author for the IPCC, and reviewer of his own work. Then it came out that he used a mathmatical model that would produce a hockey stick irrespective of what data was used. In addition the data that he did use was cherry picked, and altered to give the result he desired. His work is no longer used by the IPCC. So if you wish to call this a site run by Climate Scientists, then you are technically correct, but other scientists no longer honour Mann with that title.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

Fair comment but the site is viewed and contributed to by other climatologists, not just Mann. We get an idea of the depth of debate by reading the posts of readers following each article - that is usually a good test of scientific discussion.

[Winston001]

Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard. :bye:

[Mikkel]

I disagree, and opinions are what makes this an interesting debate

Facts would be more interesting. This is just my opinion though...


Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard. :bye:

And THAT is the essence of this matter I believe. We realise that we ought to do something about it - but we are not willing to bring that sacrifice, because it is inconvenient and bothersome... and quite frankly it's easier to just throw up our arms and say 'not my fault'.

[davereid]

Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard. :bye:

Even if we are responsible for climate change, (which I think the thread casts serious doubt on), is going back to the stone age really the best solution. ?

More people have enough to eat, good housing and access to health care than at any time in the planets history.

Most of that is due to our exploitation of the planets resources, including fossil fuels.

As Charlie Pedersen, (Former Pres. of Fed. Farmers more or less said) :

"If you are worried about the carbon emissions caused by farming, please stop eating."

Abandoning those advances just in case we have caused global warming, just in case we can reverse it and just in case it turns out to be bad makes no sense.

I think its impossible to go back in time.

At every other turn in history, humans have developed systems to survive, regardless of what the planet throws at us. In fact, we normally come out better off !

Chances are, that just in case global warming is happening, we may be even better off from it.

[Mikkel]

Even if we are responsible for climate change, (which I think the thread casts serious doubt on), is going back to the stone age really the best solution. ?

I agree, we should stop worrying about global warming - it seems that the general consensus on KB is that it's not our fault and not really an issue, so there...

:rolleyes:


More people have enough to eat, good housing and access to health care than at any time in the planets history.

Most of that is due to our exploitation of the planets resources, including fossil fuels.

As Charlie Pedersen, (Former Pres. of Fed. Farmers more or less said) :

"If you are worried about the carbon emissions caused by farming, please stop eating."

Abandoning those advances just in case we have caused global warming, just in case we can reverse it and just in case it turns out to be bad makes no sense.

I think its impossible to go back in time.

At every other turn in history, humans have developed systems to survive, regardless of what the planet throws at us. In fact, we normally come out better off !

Chances are, that just in case global warming is happening, we may be even better off from it.

Now the thing about this whole business is not that anyone are suggesting that we should completely abandon the comforts that we enjoy or leave what advances we have made behind us...

The whole deal is, that (just maybe) we may stand to loose all of these things if we don't start thinking a bit more carefully about how we utilise these resources.
Also, it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN - and when that happens we'd better be prepared or humanity will suffer a major set-back. Climate change induced by rapid release of carbondioxide into the atmosphere is a second order concern compared to the global infrastructure breaking down. Anarchy will become a very real problem if widespread famine sets in...

If you take the blindfold off you'll notice that stuff is already beginning to happen.

[Jantar]

...
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.
That statement itself may be a lie. I am firmly in the Antropogenic Climate Change Skeptic camp, yet I have never seen anyone argue that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them. What we claim is that humans aren't having a negative effect on the climate.

I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I swhould reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

[MisterD]

Also, it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN - and when that happens we'd better be prepared or humanity will suffer a major set-back. Climate change induced by rapid release of carbondioxide into the atmosphere is a second order concern compared to the global infrastructure breaking down. Anarchy will become a very real problem if widespread famine sets in...

If you take the blindfold off you'll notice that stuff is already beginning to happen.

So maybe, we'd be better off if we forgot about Iraq and oil and did something about regime change in Zimbabwe and turning that sorry place back into a net food exporter?

[Skyryder]

That statement itself may be a lie. I am firmly in the Antropogenic Climate Change Skeptic camp, yet I have never seen anyone argue that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them. What we claim is that humans aren't having a negative effect on the climate.

I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I swhould reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

Yes you are right in that humans do not have a negative effect on the climate. For that too happen we would need some means of 'controlling' the climate for humans to apply a negative or for that matter a positive effect on the climate. But we both know that this is semantics. Your argument is that we 'do' have a negative effect on the environment but 'not' on the climate. This is wrong.
Environment is all encompassing and includes both land and sea at zero feet or below and the atmosphere into the upper reaches. The van Allan radioation belts and associated magnetic fields etc. The environment is not limited as I said it is all encompassing. Even the moon is part of our environment as it effect tidal flow so to is the sun.

A negitive effect on the environment will produce a change in climate. Notice I say change. It may or may not effect climate in positive or negitive manner but if the overall effect is going to be disruptive to the status quo then most would interpret the disruptiuon as having a negitve effect. That is the basis of concern for global warming.

So on this basis "their" argument and has 'everthing' to do with climate change. For those of us who believe that the current weather, ice melt etc is caused by man made emissions as against natural causes be it volcanic or by the sun etc all other theories on global warming just don't last the distance.

There is however one piece of evidence that has never been shown to occur in the geological record. That is the current speed of warming that has occured in recent years. It is unprecedented.




Skyryder

[Jantar]

...A negitive effect on the environment will produce a change in climate.

While I agree that environment covers all aspacts of our planet I do not and cannot agree that a change in any part of the environment will change climate. How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate? It certainly changes one part of the enviroment by reducing the potability of the water, yet has no effect on climate. It is a very long stretch to try and say that all chnges to the environment affect climate.


There is however one piece of evidence that has never been shown to occur in the geological record. That is the current speed of warming that has occured in recent years. It is unprecedented.

I have seen this claim before, but it is so easily debunked that its almost a waste of time to do so. The planet is currently cooling, not at a rapid rate, but it is measurable. This has happened before, and at a much faster rate. In the early 1970's the planet was cooling so rapidly that many climate scientists claimed wew heading for an ice age. The speed of warming is currently a negative, yet we saw much faster warming in the late 1990's. Even then, the pace of warming was not unprecedented, it has happened many times in earth's history.

[fire eyes]

EVOLUTION is a serious business. We do contribute to climate change or at the very least excellerate it. We also contribute to the decline in our environment & our society, it's the price of convenience on a global scale. However, this planet has been in an evolutionary process for billions of years and it continues to do so weather we inhabit it or not. Consider the Big Bang Theory. Our very starting point. There is so much information & referencing material available to educate ones self depending on which pathway you agree with. Facts continually change, like our living planet!

[Winston001]

T
I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I should reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

I know I know, and you are correct. The major argument circles around whether man has any contribution to climate change.

The other more generally agreed position is that man is polluting the global environment. Even if it doesn't affect the climate.

Honestly, I think the second point is much more important. This debate about anthropomorphic climate change is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Right or wrong on climate, the global biosphere is going to hell in a handbasket because of pollution.

That is the real issue which needs discussion and action. Stop poisoning the place.

[k14]

Yes you are right in that humans do not have a negative effect on the climate. For that too happen we would need some means of 'controlling' the climate for humans to apply a negative or for that matter a positive effect on the climate. But we both know that this is semantics. Your argument is that we 'do' have a negative effect on the environment but 'not' on the climate. This is wrong.
See this is the problem with all the believers, they think that its a personal insult to themselves if someone comes along disputing their viewpoint. You cannot say statements like "This is wrong", there is not 100% conclusive proof denying or confirming that CO2 emissions are causing global warming (convieniently renamed to climate change due to the aforementioned warming over the past decade).

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

This just reeks of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. All the believers keep coming out with all the stats saying how right their theory is. Wrong way around for this scientist. The previously posted data by Jantar to me disproves the hypothesis of "The earth has been warming over the last decade" quite conclusively and if anyone cares to read through his posts you will see the indisputable evidence of this.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway :Pokey:

[Skyryder]

See this is the problem with all the believers, they think that its a personal insult to themselves if someone comes along disputing their viewpoint. You cannot say statements like "This is wrong", there is not 100% conclusive proof denying or confirming that CO2 emissions are causing global warming (convieniently renamed to climate change due to the aforementioned warming over the past decade).

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

This just reeks of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. All the believers keep coming out with all the stats saying how right their theory is. Wrong way around for this scientist. The previously posted data by Jantar to me disproves the hypothesis of "The earth has been warming over the last decade" quite conclusively and if anyone cares to read through his posts you will see the indisputable evidence of this.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway :Pokey:

First I don't take any opinion that differs from my own as a personal insult.

The analogy between Physics and Astrology is a poor one. Astrology or one aspect of it maintains that the personality of the indavidual is determined by time and place of birth in respect to planet aspects within the zodiac. At best it is a belief system and can not be 'proven one way or the other.


There is considearble conclusive data that our Co2 levels are higher now than at any time in the geological record to date. This is not based on psudo science as you seem to imply.

http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=3912&section=pubs&page=pubscontent_text&z=?


From

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.htm



I have highlighted the relevant sections

A 2-mile-long (3.2-kilometer-long) ice core laboriously drilled out of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years.

As the longest ice core record of Earth's weather history obtained to date, the core also shows that those gases -- carbon dioxide and methane -- play a big role in warming the planet when ice ages end.

But how this icy record will influence current theories about global warming blamed on human activity isn't clear, the researchers said.

"The ice core gives us the past, not the future. But it adds to our thinking about the future, about the future of our climate," said Jean-Robert Petit, director of research at the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France. "It's clear that greenhouse gas levels are unprecedented compared with the previous 400,000 years."

Coldest spot on Earth
The core was extracted from 1992-98 by a U.S.-Russian-French team at Russia's Vostok research station, the coldest spot on Earth. Petit and team members endured readings as cold as minus 70 Fahrenheit (minus 57 Celsius), though the station holds the world record low of minus 129 (minus 89 Celsius).

They stopped drilling about 120 yards (109 meters) short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. Scientists want to send sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are protecting it from contamination until then.
Each cylinder-like chunk of ice drilled out of the ice sheet contains a record of snowfall, atmospheric chemicals, dust and bubbles of air. Those clues, trapped in icy layers like tree rings, enable scientists to reconstruct past climates.
The lengthy Vostok ice core is particularly significant because previous cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland dated back only about 150,000 years and showed just two ice age cycles. The new core reveals four ice ages at roughly 100,000-year intervals, shedding new light on how the icy interludes end.

'Some really large changes'

All four appear to have given way to balmier times after levels of the heat-trapping gases carbon dioxide and methane rose by amounts smaller than the increase blamed on human industry in the past century.

The multinational team reported its findings in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature. (Nature is a peer reviewed magazine. my italics)

Petit and colleagues found carbon dioxide levels rose from about 180 parts per million during each ice age's height to 280-300 ppm in the subsequent warm periods -- far below the current CO2 levels of 360 ppm.

Methane levels, meanwhile, rose from 320-350 parts per billion during the icy interludes to 650-770 ppb during the warm spells. Current methane levels are 1,700 ppb.

The levels of both greenhouse gases are expected to continue their rise in the next century due to continued burning of fossil fuels such as coal and other human activities.

"This study is probably the most convincing evidence to date that humans are making some really large changes to Earth's climate system," said Jonathan Overpeck, head of the paleoclimatology program at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Beyond natural variation

"What this says is we're going well beyond the bounds of natural variation." Petit estimates that the rising greenhouse gas concentrations contributed to about 50 percent of the post-ice age warming; he attributes the remaining heat to periodic shifts in Earth's orbit that increase the amount of sunlight warming the planet.
The natural rise in the gases was attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in oceanic processing of C02, increased plankton activity and the return of methane-producing swamps.

But the core also appears to call into question previous research suggesting a 500- to 1,000-year lag time between the post-ice age temperature increase and the CO2 increase.
Instead, the core suggests temperatures rose in step with rising C02 levels, a finding of interest to scientists studying global warming.
"This core is telling us to get busy and understand the climate system because it really could change," said Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.

More

http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=3912&section=pubs&page=pubs_content_text&z=?


Skyryder

[fire eyes]

:shutup: I guess a group hug is out of the question

[Mikkel]

So maybe, we'd be better off if we forgot about Iraq and oil and did something about regime change in Zimbabwe and turning that sorry place back into a net food exporter?

It would most definitely be more constructive than bombing a medieval country bac


How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?

The global climate is a chaotic system:


Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

Changing a variable - no matter how minute - can have drastic consequences down the line.


I have seen this claim before, but it is so easily debunked that its almost a waste of time to do so. The planet is currently cooling, not at a rapid rate, but it is measurable. This has happened before, and at a much faster rate. In the early 1970's the planet was cooling so rapidly that many climate scientists claimed wew heading for an ice age. The speed of warming is currently a negative, yet we saw much faster warming in the late 1990's. Even then, the pace of warming was not unprecedented, it has happened many times in earth's history.

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!


As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

You're right to a certain degree. There's a lot of Pseudo Scientific babble going on these days - not just on the climate debate side of things btw. Seems that the accepted way of making people buy into a 'truth' is to have a guy with a fancy title in a lab-coat present it.

However, as a physicist you must have some knowledge of chaotic systems and would agree that analysing a chaotic system the size of this planet's surface is a major undertaking - and an undertaking that wasn't considered until sometime last century... Considering how much time has been spent by bright minds on figuring out comparatively simple systems it's not exactly surprising that there hasn't been developed an accurate model yet. So while there are indeed people who are trying to push an agenda and use the debate as leverage in politics - don't forget that there are real scientists out there who have clues and are concerned about the matter.

[Skyryder]

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!

I can on the thread subject.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/


I've posted a number of links in support of my arguments.


Skyryder

[Ocean1]

it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN

Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

[Jantar]

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!


I certainly hope so. Shortly after that post I received a link to a published paper that appears to validate my claim with data. (Yes, I am still receiving climate data at home, I can't imagine how much is waiting for me to analyse when I get back to work). There are 67 pages, and so far I've only taken in 29 of them. there are 27 pages of references, and I have no intention of checking every single one of them. However one staetment already backs up much of my claim: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf

Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.

[Jantar]

I can on the thread subject.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/


I've posted a number of links in support of my arguments.


Skyryder

I have read that link previously. It is a classic case of attack the messenger, not the message as it tries to attack the scientists who appear in the documentary and the producer, but doesn't present any evidence that the claims are wrong.

[Jantar]

...Changing a variable - no matter how minute - can have drastic consequences down the line.
Note your use of the word "can". That doesn't always mean 'does". I would still ask for an answer to my question "How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?"


- don't forget that there are real scientists out there who have clues and are concerned about the matter.
Too true, and I am in regular contact with many of them.

[Skyryder]

I have read that link previously. It is a classic case of attack the messenger, not the message as it tries to attack the scientists who appear in the documentary and the producer, but doesn't present any evidence that the claims are wrong.

Yes that is correct but it seriously questions the 'integrity' of those that 'performed' for the Swindle documetary. I posted a U Tube link that debunked some of the claims made in the same doco in another post.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

.... I posted a U Tube link that debunked some of the claims made in the same doco in another post.
Yes you did. Unfortunately I'm on dial up here so U Tube links are out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

It may be one I have seen before through the Climate Science Coalition. Is it of a lecturer giving a lecture to his students?

[Skyryder]

Yes you did. Unfortunately I'm on dial up here so U Tube links are out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

It may be one I have seen before through the Climate Science Coalition. Is it of a lecturer giving a lecture to his students?


Try this guy.

4. In 13th March edition of the Guardian, George Monbiot takes out the claims of the programme one by one. Link… On his website full scientific references are given for his article which, unlike the Swindle, was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Its in the last link I posted. The bit after the charactor 'assassinations.' Seems to have a credible reputation and as he say his article was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Skyryder


Skyryder

[davereid]

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html

[Winston001]

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway :Pokey:

The vast majority of research scientists do not have agendas. The idea of assuming results and jumping to conclusions is completely contrary to the scientific method. Test hypotheses, try to replicate the data, peer review, face criticism from journals, other researchers, on it goes.

What drives scientists is their curiosity and wonder at what is discovered - and what remains to be discovered.

So I cannot and do not accept that the climate change debate is captured by immoral or deluded scientists on both sides. There are simply too many people of integrity with no axe to grind who would shout alarm - not to mention the journals.

Where the arguments go askew is when people go outside their fields and comment on things they have no specialisation in. Metorologists (weather) trying to argue with climatologists (global trends). On top of that, oil companies promote disinformation and wheel out pseudo scientists. Sad but it happens.

So - the lesson is to look hard at who is doing the research and what their experience is.

[Skyryder]

The vast majority of research scientists do not have agendas. The idea of assuming results and jumping to conclusions is completely contrary to the scientific method. Test hypotheses, try to replicate the data, peer review, face criticism from journals, other researchers, on it goes.

What drives scientists is their curiosity and wonder at what is discovered - and what remains to be discovered.

So I cannot and do not accept that the climate change debate is captured by immoral or deluded scientists on both sides. There are simply too many people of integrity with no axe to grind who would shout alarm - not to mention the journals.

Where the arguments go askew is when people go outside their fields and comment on things they have no specialisation in. Metorologists (weather) trying to argue with climatologists (global trends). On top of that, oil companies promote disinformation and wheel out pseudo scientists. Sad but it happens.

So - the lesson is to look hard at who is doing the research and what their experience is.

Absolutly. If some looked as hard at the evidence of climate change as hard as they look at bike before buying, this thread would have died way back.


skyryder

[skeeter]

Right - Up until now its been big business denyiing that there is climate change - just listen to Bush. The tide is changing however. To change behaviour you need to hit people in the wallet. In NZ Autocar there is talk of higher taxes next year on big cars, less tax on small cars. I wonder where the litre plus bikes fit in?

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

[Patar]

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

I have to admit, looking at many of the graphs that have been slapped together to make a point (abundant in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" but found on both sides of the fence) can make me curdle.

Can anyone point out a single problem with the message that the global warming believers spout? The idea that we should be developing and implementing more efficient technologies, trying to minimise our impact on the environment.

Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied.

So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be! :bash:




p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.

How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate? Let me illustrate.
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.

[Jantar]

Try this guy.

4. In 13th March edition of the Guardian, George Monbiot takes out the claims of the programme one by one. Link… On his website full scientific references are given for his article which, unlike the Swindle, was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Its in the last link I posted. The bit after the charactor 'assassinations.' Seems to have a credible reputation and as he say his article was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Skyryder


Skyryder

There is no data on that link that refutes anything in the documentary. There are some claims that are correct in what they say, but what they do say does not refute any thesis presented.

[Jantar]

...Can anyone point out a single problem with the message that the global warming believers spout? The idea that we should be developing and implementing more efficient technologies, trying to minimise our impact on the environment.
Yes, there are two problems with that message. First is that there has been no warming for the past decade and the earth is currently cooling. Second, more efficient technologies has nothing to do with AGW.


Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied. Just the opposite in fact. It is saying that we should be doing things for factual reasons, not for religious like beliefs.


So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be! :bash: We bankrupt our country, hold back developement in emerging economies, and cause massive starvation.




p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.
Let me illustrate.
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.

I look forward to seeing your data supporting this claim.

[Skyryder]

There is no data on that link that refutes anything in the documentary. There are some claims that are correct in what they say, but what they do say does not refute any thesis presented.

Yes but these very scientists give their 'opinions' based on the data that they have seen. This is how the general public learn. Unless you have been trained for a specific dicsapline most would not understand data from a scientific paper or be able to come to any reliable conclusion.

The data that has been presented in the Swindle 'has' been discredited by the very people who understand climate science. I don't have access to raw data and even if I did I don't have the training to interpret it. I have to rely on 'credibility' as a yardstick as do most of us in one way or another. The anti global warming people don't seem to have any credibility. Their theories seem to suit big buisness politics in as much that their emissions are not cause of riseing Co2 levels

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

Skyryder

[dipshit]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jantar]

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

Skyryder

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

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1591266&highlight=msu#post1591266

[Jantar]

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

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

[dipshit]

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

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

i.e..
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

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

[Patar]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

[Jantar]

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

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

[dipshit]

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

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

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

[Jantar]

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

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

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

[Skyryder]

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

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1591266&highlight=msu#post1591266

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

This shows otherwise.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_data.htm#fig2


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

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

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

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


Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

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


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

I saw a cloud yesterday...

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


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

[davereid]

One thing we can be sure of...

Global warming hasn't killed anyone yet.

But hysteria about it has already killed millions.

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

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

And its got years to run !

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

[Jantar]

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

This shows otherwise.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_data.htm#fig2


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

Skyryder

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

However, thankyou for that link, embeded within it was a link to the actual GISS data used. I only had indirect access to that previously. I would draw your attention to this
sources: GHCN 1880-04/2008 (meteorological stations only) found at the top of the data page.

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

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

[Swoop]

We have to get away from the mentality of cheap.

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

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

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

[Zookey]

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

[avgas]

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

[avgas]

I have a friend in Hong Kong who sends me photos and you can't even see the tops of buildings because of the grey smog.
Thats nothing mate - in Shanghai during winter you can not see 500m down the road, and they don't get fog.
Shanghai has a new 'coal fired' power station every 6 months.

[Skyryder]

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

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

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

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

At the end of day it really comes down to credibility. Data can be provided by both camps in support of their position.

If THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE is the best that the proponents, that refuse to believe in Co2 emissions are causing adverse changes to global weather can produce, then the credibility of their position has got to be suspect. Carl Wunsch Professor of MIT’S Department of Oceanography who was in the original cut first aired on UK’ C4 channel has claimed the documentary was one sided, anti educational and misleading. Ofcam received 246 complaints about the swindle one was co sighed by 37 UK and US scientists. Durkin the producer of the Swindle has responded to criticism by personal abuse. There is plenty of scientific opinion (based of credible data) that clearly support the position that temperature warming is a direct result of Co2 emissions. And as mentioned in an earlier post those that disagree tend to have little credibility amongst their peers/or their data has been produced for those whose business concerns are directly or indirectly profit driven at the expense of having to comply with lowering of Co2 levels.

On this note we can agree to disagree. :girlfight:

Skyryder


PS There is some date that shows the the temperture has recently plateaued. This suggest a leveling off from previous temperture rises not a reduction as cooling implies.

[Jantar]

On this note we can agree to disagree. :girlfight:
.

seconded.

I will keep both sets of data up to date in case anyone ever wishes to refer to them in the future.

[Hitcher]

There's a good article in today's Independent Financial Review, written by Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

[k14]

Thanks hitcher.

These youtube videos were an interesting watch too:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gleaned from this little article here (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/14/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-take)

I'd be very interested if anyone was to mention Prof Carters credibility!!

[Skyryder]

There's a good article in today's Independent Financial Review, written by Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm


Got a warning shot from the paper mentioned: Independant Financial Review. A right wing buisness newspaper. Yep Independent? So I's takes a gander and first three links are pro buisness in that they refute Co2 as a cause for global warming. Seems to me a collection of sites that are in opposition to Co2 emissions as the cause of global warming. Now I could be wrong Hitch but can you recomend a site on the link posted that advocates the cause of global warming due to Co2 emissions. Just one ol' son just one. Save me a lot of time searching.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Thanks hitcher.

These youtube videos were an interesting watch too:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gleaned from this little article here (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/14/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-take)

I'd be very interested if anyone was to mention Prof Carters credibility!!


Just more rubbish. The belittling of those that have an opposing view and using a time frame that stops at 2000. Said it all no need to say any more.



Skyryder

[Maki]

Just watch it, will you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573

There are people in this world who use science to find the truth. There are others who misuse it to tell lies. Figuring out who is who is not really that hard....

I can understand those who doubted global warming created by human activity 10 years ago. The issue was still somewhat controversial and major climatic events that have happened since then had yet to unfold. Now, in 2008 the facts are on the table. Those who still say they doubt man made global warming remind me of Hillary Rodham Clinton. They fail to acknowledge a fact that is staring them in the face because they do not like the implications. Words that come to mind are mule and stubborn.

[Jantar]

...I can understand those who doubted global warming created by human activity 10 years ago. The issue was still somewhat controversial and major climatic events that have happened since then had yet to unfold. Now, in 2008 the facts are on the table. Those who still say they doubt man made global warming remind me of Hillary Rodham Clinton. They fail to acknowledge a fact that is staring them in the face because they do not like the implications. Words that come to mind are mule and stubborn.
Sorry, I can't watch your video. Dialup is just too slow for that. But I agree with you the facts are on the table. Temperature data for may 2008 has just been released on the MSU site, and it shows a further massive drop in global temperature. And Anthony Watts provides an even broader context to this latest seventeen-month trend:

the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594�C [gives] a 16 month change in temperature of -0.774�C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon �global warming signal� of the last 100 years...

I have updated the MSU graph so people can see the facts for themselves.

[avgas]

The problem in all the data is correlation.
Its very easy to state "The 2 lines match therefore there is a correlation". I'm not saying the data is right or wrong - im just saying that its not the whole picture. I see a whole lot of talk right now about "Global Warming", but very little USEFUL action. Carbon "trading" is complete and utter bullshit - if it were truly trading then credits would be 'sold' to those who plant trees. Science dollars are being porely spent in "calculating the end of man-kind" rather than finding real solutions.
Imagine taking your car to the mechanic and he checked the whole thing over, gave you the keys back and tells you "Yeh, she is serviceable - and she will last you another 4335km if you drive at the current rate":eek5: Your response will be "Thats great mate - but why do you just fix the fucken car and make sure it never stops!"
Now look at all those who make claims, for or against climate change, they either are getting paid, or want something to their name. They don't care about the solutions. They are over priced, over intelligent, salesmen. Expecting the rest of the world to both listen to them, and create them a solution.
Who is John Galt indeed!

[Maki]

Apologies. This should work:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

[Maki]

Sorry, I can't watch your video. Dialup is just too slow for that. But I agree with you the facts are on the table. Temperature data for may 2008 has just been released on the MSU site, and it shows a further massive drop in global temperature. And Anthony Watts provides an even broader context to this latest seventeen-month trend:


I have updated the MSU graph so people can see the facts for themselves.

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being superimposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

[Pwalo]

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being supermiposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

Well put. And (to spell it out a bit more) correlation does not prove a causal relationship. Whoops, sorry about the grammar.

[Jantar]

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being supermiposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

The most pervasive of these on a 100000 year cycle being the so called Milankovic cycle. Recent research by NIWA scientists in christchurch, and a line of research that I am currently following indicates that in the time periods we are most concerned with the cycle with the best correlation is the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation), also reffered to by the Hadley Center as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It has a cycle of around 40 - 50 years, ie 20 -25 years warm, then 20 -25 years cold. In 1999 - 2000 we appear to have moved from a warm phase toward a cooling phase, and at a Climate variability workshop in Wellington 4 weeks ago, NIWA showed that we are now right in that negative phase and likely to stay there for a further 12 - 15 years minimum.

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.

[Maki]

The most pervasive of these on a 100000 year cycle being the so called Milankovic cycle. Recent research by NIWA scientists in christchurch, and a line of research that I am currently following indicates that in the time periods we are most concerned with the cycle with the best correlation is the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation), also reffered to by the Hadley Center as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It has a cycle of around 40 - 50 years, ie 20 -25 years warm, then 20 -25 years cold. In 1999 - 2000 we appear to have moved from a warm phase toward a cooling phase, and at a Climate variability workshop in Wellington 4 weeks ago, NIWA showed that we are now right in that negative phase and likely to stay there for a further 12 - 15 years minimum.

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.

Well done. You are obviously able to figure things out for yourself. Keep up the good work.

[Waxxa]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

If humans have made such a big impact on the planet in such a relatively short time, then the answer can only be reduce the number of humans. It wont matter if everyone seperates their plastics, paper and cans, catch buses over private transport or what ever 'green' practices you do because the planets population is increasing way faster than it should.

What govts' is going to make the call (or world body) that only so many people can live on this planet and who has to go. If we keep breeding the supposed global warming problem will not go away, it will increase incremently regardless.

[dipshit]

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.


Here's some that goes for 127 years. You will note that the lines do go up and down for several years at a time... but the overall long-term trend is an increase in the earth's average temperature.

Global warming does not predict a steady increase from one year to the next. It predicts 1 or 2 degrees increase in average global temperature over 20 years or so. (or whatever)

Saying last year showed a cooling does not negate what global warming is predicting.

[Jantar]

...Saying last year showed a cooling does not negate what global warming is predicting. No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

[Maki]

No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

Heaves giant sigh of relief... The plateauing of the GISS data really does it for me, thanks.

[Maki]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

If humans have made such a big impact on the planet in such a relatively short time, then the answer can only be reduce the number of humans. It wont matter if everyone seperates their plastics, paper and cans, catch buses over private transport or what ever 'green' practices you do because the planets population is increasing way faster than it should.

What govts' is going to make the call (or world body) that only so many people can live on this planet and who has to go. If we keep breeding the supposed global warming problem will not go away, it will increase incremently regardless.

Gosh, thats true but very unPC. Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image. It's much more PC to introduce carbon trading, etc. Things that will not solve the problem.

If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion.

I have said this before and been told, "oh, but look at China and the nasty results from their 1 child policy, more boys than girls, etc..." I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war...

Whatever...

[dipshit]

No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which could be masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

[dipshit]

This is the effect of just aircraft contrails...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

[Maki]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.

We are obviously having an impact on the planet, but trying to tell that to some people is like banging your head against a stone.

They will figure it out anyway, sooner or later.

[davereid]

.... Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image.....If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion......I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war....

No, it's already being done.

For example, the rich western world now like the word "Sustainability".

That word just means "Turn the poor mans land from food production into the production of petrol. Let him starve"

Thats how it works. We ignore plentiful reserves of coal and other fossil fuels and force biofuels on the world.

Biofuels are merely the first worlds money buying the third worlds food when we don't need to.

The most finite (unsustainable ?) resource the world has is arable land.

But, in a questionable solution to a problem that may not exist, we have created a solution that may not work, using irreplaceable resources, and starving millions.

But still, we are the first world. When your grandkids say "Daddy, what did you about global warming" you can say "I used biofuel and sustainable stuff. It only killed poor people, and now they are gone we keep doing it forever"

[Skyryder]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

I seem to recall seeing something on this on the Discovery channel a while back. I certainly recall comments that dimming was causing aberations in global temperture measurements. Might explain why some measurements suggest a plateau of global temperture at present.


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

That word just means "Turn the poor mans land from food production into the production of petrol. Let him starve"

There is truth in that. Compound that by adding an overlay of overindulged ignorant green politics that is opposed to genetically-modified food production and deeply in love with "organics" and the world's scant arable land falls under even greater pressure.

Mankind has the necessary technology and knowledge to feed the world many times over. The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.

[avgas]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.
In more than 1 occasion in the history of the planet, over 1/3 or the planet did not see ANY decent sunlight for a long period of time. This was caused by natural effects. It too put lovely fluctuations on your temperature graph, could not the planet have cooled during this period, then increased in the last 10,000 years to a level more maintainable? I'm not saying once again that the data about the aircraft paths blocking the sun is false, im just saying that to assume everything has a 'butterfly effect' is not the ONLY option. Especially considering that particulates in Jet fuel are superheated and would disperse easier than most.

[dipshit]

In more than 1 occasion in the history of the planet, over 1/3 or the planet did not see ANY decent sunlight for a long period of time. This was caused by natural effects. It too put lovely fluctuations on your temperature graph, could not the planet have cooled during this period, then increased in the last 10,000 years to a level more maintainable?

Of course the planet sees changes in temperatures time and time again. A volcanic eruption can send temperatures plummeting for several years at a time. Or the bigger ice ages and warming cycles.

Earth has had hundreds of thousands of years to settle into a pattern with its own ways to produced enough equilibrium for life as we know it through various balancing acts. Otherwise life wouldn't of had the reasonable stability over millions of years to evolve in to the species we have now.

But how fine are those balancing mechanisms? Could our human activity that has only just recently come onto the scene with technology capable of altering our planet, be enough to upset those natural cycles?

When you look back at our atmosphere from space you realise there isn't much there beyond the clouds and can see how delicate it really is...

[Waxxa]

Gosh, thats true but very unPC. Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image. It's much more PC to introduce carbon trading, etc. Things that will not solve the problem.

If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion.

I have said this before and been told, "oh, but look at China and the nasty results from their 1 child policy, more boys than girls, etc..." I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war...

Whatever...

China had the right idea but their culture of wanting boys over girls has now put China in a terrible, sexual imbalance. Though China would be one of the few countries in the world who could implement such a policy (and it is a policy of one child, not a policy of boys only).

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple. We have to reduce the population before sustaining a pre-determined level.

If the planet is to survive another couple of thousand years of human habitation, we need drastic solutions and forget the Political Correctness crap. Time to get logical not emotional.

[Ocean1]

The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.

Amen.

I am, however, working on it.

[Bullitt]

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple.

As much as thats a good theory Id like to see a political party try to implement that...thed never work again:laugh:

[davereid]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt. We are the most biologically fragile mammal on the planet. Yet we can live in hotter climates, and colder climates that any other species. We consistently produce more food, and improve our lives - no other animal has ever done that.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.

But, we already know, that productive, rich countries already CHOOSE population growth below replacement.

Stone age people need children and grandchildren to feed them.

Technological people don't.

The world can easily support it's current population, and much more. And given wealth, most will choose to rely on technology, not grandchildren to keep them eating in old age.

[peasea]

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt. We are the most biologically fragile mammal on the planet. Yet we can live in hotter climates, and colder climates that any other species. We consistently produce more food, and improve our lives - no other animal has ever done that.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.

But, we already know, that productive, rich countries already CHOOSE population growth below replacement.

Stone age people need children and grandchildren to feed them.

Technological people don't.

The world can easily support it's current population, and much more. And given wealth, most will choose to rely on technology, not grandchildren to keep them eating in old age.

While living longer into the bargain.

[Winston001]

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.


The world can easily support it's current population, and much more.

No. Three examples - Mesopotamia, Mayan empire, Easter Island. All three used up their resources and within a very short period evaporated as societies.

We are now a global community and there isn't another handy planet to move to if we muck this one up. Our natural resources are not infinite.

Up to 1960 the worlds biomass was in balance - animals, plants and micro-organisms reproduced as fast as they died. However since then the human population has exploded and the others have shrunk. There is a very complex symbiosis between micro-organisms and our environment. Plants won't grow without them, oxygen is created in plants by them (no it isn't the plant itself, contrary to school science), our ability to absorb food relies on them.

And we've been poisoning these tiny creatures, as well as taking larger species to extinction.

Yes humans will survive - but at the cost of billions of deaths. I despair at what can be done - its beyond politics.

[TimeOut]

China had the right idea but their culture of wanting boys over girls has now put China in a terrible, sexual imbalance. Though China would be one of the few countries in the world who could implement such a policy (and it is a policy of one child, not a policy of boys only).

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple. We have to reduce the population before sustaining a pre-determined level.

If the planet is to survive another couple of thousand years of human habitation, we need drastic solutions and forget the Political Correctness crap. Time to get logical not emotional.

That may have the disired effect as there will be less females to reproduce in future generations. (Terrible as it may be)

[Maki]

That may have the disired effect as there will be less females to reproduce in future generations. (Terrible as it may be)

Anything is better than simply telling people that 1 child is the max they can have. That would not be PC, would it...

[Winston001]

China is the only country in the world brave enough to institute a controlled birthrate policy. And it is only possible there because it is an autocracy run by one Party. At times there are benefits in benevolent dictatorship, its just that from our liberal perspective, it doesn't look too benevolent. :devil2:

The way it works is that you are permitted as a couple to have one child. If you have a second child you are taxed extra, the child isn't taken away or killed. Kind of the exact opposite to Family Support here which encourages more children.

What happens with divorced or unmarried mothers I don't know, makes it kind of tough to have a child with a new husband.

And yes, boys are preferred over girls in Chinese culture so girl foetuses are aborted or sadly the baby disappears....

Nevertheless this policy is to be admired. You are allowed to have more children, you just need to be able to support them. Kind makes sense.

[madandy]

There is truth in that. Compound that by adding an overlay of overindulged ignorant green politics that is opposed to genetically-modified food production and deeply in love with "organics" and the world's scant arable land falls under even greater pressure.

Mankind has the necessary technology and knowledge to feed the world many times over. The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.


We are a long was from producing the quantities of food required without poisoning the land.
Irrigation technologies and chemical reliance are the other barriers.

Organic eggs are so much better than non organic eggs, fact. Same with lettuce etc.

[davereid]

We are a long was from producing the quantities of food required without poisoning the land.
Irrigation technologies and chemical reliance are the other barriers.

Organic eggs are so much better than non organic eggs, fact. Same with lettuce etc.

Organic food certainly tastes better, we have our own garden, sheep, chickens and eggs as a result.

But we don't have to feed the world with organic gourmet food.

Actually, millions of people wold be happy to eat at all !

Our arrogance is a massive part of this problem.

Don't stave the third world, just so you can feel good about your carbon credits.

We became rich (and for the first time in the planets history generally fat), by cutting down trees, using coal to make steel, and the industrial revolution.

Its a special kind of person that would deny wealth to the third world so that we may remain fat.

[Bullitt]

Everyone knows about chinas one child policy but does anyone know what effect its actually having. China has about 1 billion people, in 20 years time will they have 800 million and 50 years time 500 million or something like that or are they still continuing to grow?

[Winston001]

China - so far as I know they still have a growing population but much slower than say, India.

[Ocean1]

Everyone knows about chinas one child policy but does anyone know what effect its actually having.

A bit. It's no longer enforced but the social damage it caused is evident, not too far below the surface. I met numerous teenagers who were 2nd and third children, particularly in the villages. Unrecognised by the state they get no education and for some health care is difficult. You don't want to go there.

[Winston001]

But we don't have to feed the world with organic gourmet food.

Don't starve the third world, just so you can feel good about your carbon credits.

We became rich (and for the first time in the planets history generally fat), by cutting down trees, using coal to make steel, and the industrial revolution.

Its a special kind of person that would deny wealth to the third world so that we may remain fat.

Nobody in the West wants to deliberately starve the Third World - instead it will happen as a sort of unintended and unseen consequence of our continued wealth. We have the money to buy bio-fuels, it pays better as a crop for an African farmer, why would he plant wheat?

Earth is currently heading towards a population of 7 billion. Biologists calculate that a sustainable biomass could support 2 billion. So....5 billion people either have to stop breeding (unlikely) or gradually die of starvation, disease, and war.

The injustice is that its the poor of the world who will suffer because they can't do anything about it. We in the West have choices, we have space, food, medicine and technology.

[Winston001]

A bit. It's no longer enforced but the social damage it caused is evident, not too far below the surface. I met numerous teenagers who were 2nd and third children, particularly in the villages. Unrecognised by the state they get no education and for some health care is difficult. You don't want to go there.

Interesting and inevitable. There will be a strong political and legal disincentive for a second child, reinforced by public disapproval.

[devnull]

China is the only country in the world brave enough to institute a controlled birthrate policy. And it is only possible there because it is an autocracy run by one Party. At times there are benefits in benevolent dictatorship, its just that from our liberal perspective, it doesn't look too benevolent. :devil2:

The way it works is that you are permitted as a couple to have one child. If you have a second child you are taxed extra, the child isn't taken away or killed. Kind of the exact opposite to Family Support here which encourages more children.

What happens with divorced or unmarried mothers I don't know, makes it kind of tough to have a child with a new husband.

And yes, boys are preferred over girls in Chinese culture so girl foetuses are aborted or sadly the baby disappears....

Nevertheless this policy is to be admired. You are allowed to have more children, you just need to be able to support them. Kind makes sense.

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.

Try bringing that sort of thing in here and expect armed insurrection. I know which side I'll be on. It'd guarantee a thinning out of the population, though not perhaps in ways the politicians intended

[Street Gerbil]

The Nuclear Winter!
Bring It On!!!

[Winston001]

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.



Fair call, bling awarded. I didn't say it was a pleasant system or welcomed by individual Chinese, and forced abortions is appalling.

[madbikeboy]

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.

Try bringing that sort of thing in here and expect armed insurrection. I know which side I'll be on. It'd guarantee a thinning out of the population, though not perhaps in ways the politicians intended


I lived in South East Asia - forced late term abortions are where, when the baby crowns (the top of the babies head is exposed during birth), formaldahyde is directly injected into their brain causing death. This is particularly cruel, and bought to you by the same people as our next Olympics, cheaply made consumer crap, and a significant proportion of GHG/CO2 emissions...

If someone tried enforcing a law like that and it was my kid at stake - there would be an bloodbath...

[Hitcher]

The Nuclear Winter!
Bring It On!!!

If Israel takes a poke at Iran, this may be here sooner than you imagine.

[Street Gerbil]

If Israel takes a poke at Iran...
I am sure you meant to say "unless Israel takes a poke at Iran and does so as neatly as they did in Syria and in Iraq".

[Hitcher]

I am sure you meant to say "unless Israel takes a poke at Iran and does so as neatly as they did in Syria and in Iraq".

If you think that that makes a difference.

[Street Gerbil]

If you think that that makes a difference.
Well, it worked miracles in Osirac.

[Swoop]

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.
I think we can devise some form of "research", that proves that the warming was caused by three burning buildings...

[Jantar]

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.

Are you sure that the warmer temperatures weren't caused by a large high pressure zone just off the eastern seaboard and a trough of low pressure off the west coast, dragging warm air right up the eastern side of thr rockies. Coupled with the foen effect over the rockies and with a consequntial heating from the high?

Maybe another case of not seperating weather from climate?

[Waxxa]

As much as thats a good theory Id like to see a political party try to implement that...thed never work again:laugh:

It would take an unprecedented and extraordinary decision and a world body to impose this kind of 'solution' but by 2020 the population will be approx. 9 billion. By 2032, 14-15 billion people.

Even if all the people on the planet did conservation measures, we will never compensate for the rubbish produced, forests felled for farming, more cattle farting (methane gas), you require more food, water, power, transport to accommodate the growing population, hence more destruction!

Do we really have the technology to save us?

Bio-fuels is a disaster! What other short-sighted solutions are to be unleashed on us without proper research? Are we willing (the west) to hand over such technology? For what return (or cost to us)?

[davereid]

...forests felled for farming...
.... more cattle farting (methane gas)...
...you require more food, water, power, transport to accommodate the growing population, hence more destruction!


Forests are carbon sinks, but ONLY if they are felled. When a tree grows, it sucks up carbon. When it dies, and rots on the forest floor, it releases it. The only way for a tree or a forest to be a carbon sink, is to cut it down as soon as it is mature, and make sure it does not rot. ie Don't use it to build a leaky home.

Cattle farting ? Don't worry about it. At least in NZ. Our cattle eat grass. It grows, gobbling up carbon. Cows eat it, we eat them, we die, releasing the carbon. Exactly 1:1.
(For some reason Kyoto doesn't count grasslands as a carbon sink. But don't worry, they are.)

You can't make or destroy carbon biologically unless you are in the green party.

Your trees won't help, unless you use them to make houses.

[Mort]

The problem I have with the points in the Global Warming Swindle program is the clearly apparent lack of evidence to support their position which refutes the evidence found by scientists and respected institutions which support the climate change theory.

I also think that this sort of mis-information is doing us tremendous harm by delaying action on global climate change.

The evidence may be un-convincing still to some (On KB and elsewhere) but I suggest they take a look at the risks we are taking by not acting on climate change.

The question is not "Are humans changing the climate ?"

The question should be "What is the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and the risks ?"

Either climate change will happen or not. Either we do something about it or not. How do we decide on the best way forward ?

I recently found a very convincing argument in a video (which I dont think has been covered here but forgive me if it is a repost - I did do a search)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zORv8wwiadQ&hl=en&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zORv8wwiadQ&hl=en&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The guy on the video goes on to quite a lot of detail about his argument - If you have several hours and plenty of download capacity I recommend you take the time to watch them all - I did - its worth it.

Video Index here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw)

It convinced me that the risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of effectively addressing climate change. We should all do our bit.

But don't take my word for it -

BE CRITICAL - WATCH THE VIDEOS - DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

[davereid]

The question should be "What is the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and the risks ?"


The answer to that question is easy.

It's do nothing. At most, cautiously work on reducing our use of fossil fuels, but don't panic.

Climate change hasn't even come close to killing anyone.

But according to the UN, about 1 billion people are facing food shortages largely attributable to the price of food being put out of their reach.

Two reasons for that. The first is the normal cycle of drought, that has occurred since the greeks started keeping records 2500 years ago.

But even with drought, we can still (easily!) make much more food than we need.

The most important bit is that the 3rd world can't afford it.

We have diverted cheap food production to make sustainable petrol.

Replacing plentiful but finite oil and gas, with scarce and finite arable land IS NOT a solution !

[Mikkel]

But according to the UN, about 1 billion people are facing food shortages largely attributable to the price of food being put out of their reach.

Sounds like a way to get around the over-population issue then :whistle:

[Badjelly]

We have diverted cheap food production to make sustainable petrol.

I don't believe that has made a significant contribution to the recent rise in food prices. Sure, there's the (crazy) US corn ethanol scheme, but otherwise? However I'm open to any facts you can offer on this question.

[vifferman]

CFC's eat ozone. Get rid of the bastards. Hopefully that big hole above us wil gradually heal.
Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

[Mikkel]

Some people think that this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_field#Magnetic_field_reversals
might have something to do with the depletion of the ozone layer that we are seeing.

[irishlad]

Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

Thanks for that. Is nice to get some detailed info.

[irishlad]

Some people think that this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_field#Magnetic_field_reversals
might have something to do with the depletion of the ozone layer that we are seeing.

Make you wonder. If it shifts in a 250,000 Yr cycle, will mankind be around long enough to have proof of theory?

[Badjelly]

Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

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

[Mikkel]

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

If we're testing a hypothesis - hypocritical should be good enough!

[vifferman]

You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a movie.
But what could I call it? :spudwhat:
"True Confessions of Chicken Little", mayhap?
"A Big Hole in the Sky Burned My Bum"?

[Bullitt]

It convinced me that the risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of effectively addressing climate change.
That would depend entirely on what assumptions you make.

On one extreme climate change is a certainty and we can save the planet by not riding motorbikes and becoming vegetarians. Everyone is inconvenienced but lives. The risk of doing nothing is too high.

On the other extreme climate change is not influenced by people in any way. There may be variation but its entirely normal. We divert all the land into producing biofuels and stop using non-renewable engergy and billions starve and alot of other people die from other entirely preventable causes. Lots of people die, everyone is significantly worse off and nothing is achieved at all. The risk of doing anything is too high.

The truth is somewhere in between.

To my mind theres an infinitecimal risk Ill get shot tomorrow. If it actually happens Ill wish I was wearing a bullet proof vest. In the other infinity-1 situations I wont get shot and I would have been inconvenienced by wearing a bullet proof vest for no reason. Just because the worst case scenario is alot worse for me than the likely scenario dont mean its logical for me to prepare for something I consider has practially no chance of happening.

[Indiana_Jones]

<img src="http://flaggman.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/al-gore-and-augie-auer.jpg">

-Indy

[Zookey]

<img src="http://flaggman.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/al-gore-and-augie-auer.jpg">

-Indy
I am with you all the way there bro