Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[mashman]

my "truth" is based on real scientist's not the theorist's you believe in, and I'll give you a couple of possibilities that could increase temps (not saying they do or don't just putting them out there as better alternatives to the propaganda you believe in)
1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.
2. Electromagnetic radiation. Your cellphone, your TV, your radio, your WiFi, your computer, your microwave. All helping to heat the earth just like the sun does (makes alot more sense than your cows farting don't it!!!)

3. Perhaps the Earths core is cooling. Maybe it's heating. Maybe it takes a really really long time for the Earths core to heat and cool in response to the suns activity and we just happen to be here at one of those moments in time... perhaps as the Earth heats and cools the plates swell and contract and we get Earthquakes and other fucked up weather accompanying that swelling... doh, or contracting.

[Jantar]

....
1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.....

The sun is currently very quiet. Very low sunspot numbers, and the flux is heading down towards that magic 1500 level where the sun can considered in a grand minmum.

[superman]

Remember that there are around 80 - 100 volcanos active at any one time and generally at least 2 major volcanos erupting at any one time, with more than 100 major eruption per year, hence volcanos do emit more CO2 than do humans.

There are currently 4 major eruptions in progress, but we only hear about one because it disrupts air travel. How about Nabro in Ethiopia, or Kizimen on the Kamchatka Peninsula, or here http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/ just look for yourself.

No.

http://www.livescience.com/14591-car...volcanoes.html

[ellipsis]

...i'm still causing lots of excess global warming...now have an old rusty visor fireplace in until further notice...its a relic from someones 70's dream home i acquired and threw under a tree years ago...fuck, does it rip through combustible material...it's just about sucked into its maw in the last week, 38 square meters of flooring, the joists holding said flooring and all the sub frame and piles and dozens of cardboard boxes.....i seem to remember lots of these fires in places way back then...the old hippies and swingers must have burned a few forests to keep those things running for all the years when they were a "hot thing"...if i could find a fondue set up, i'd be right back there..

[Scuba_Steve]

...if i could find a fondue set up, i'd be right back there..

mmmmm fondue uggghhhh

[shrub]

1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.

Yes, the sun is the source of the heat and has a strong influence on climate, and studies covering the past 1150 years have found that temperatures closely match solar activity. Unfortunately a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 while global temperatures have been warming, to the point where over the last 35 years sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. (Lockwood 2008).

2 . Electromagnetic radiation. Your cellphone, your TV, your radio, your WiFi, your computer, your microwave. All helping to heat the earth just like the sun does (makes alot more sense than your cows farting don't it!!!)

It's been a while since I've heard that one. Yes, electromagentic radiation can influence climate, but the influence of all the cellphones, TVs etc in the world combined is so small it's like saying the reason my bike is slower than a Gixxer 1000 is because the Gixxer has more streamlined indicators. And that's kind of where you and I differ. Have you heard of something called Ockham's razor? Essentially that means you use the most likely explanation for a phenomenon first.

Going back to the bike analogy, last week I was riding along and suddenly the engine lost power quite dramatically. It could have meant my ignition system was shitting itself, or that I had run out of oil and was about to sieze, or even that space aliens were using a ray that killed all engines, or it could have meant I was running out of gas. Sure enough, my trip meter showed 205 km, and because I know that at around 200 km I go onto reserve I reached down and turned the tap. Sure enough seconds later the mighty triple roared back into life and away I went.

There is a most likely cause for the current climate change and every piece of research (checking the odometer, turning the fuel tap) suggests that it's human activity.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes, the sun is the source of the heat and has a strong influence on climate, and studies covering the past 1150 years have found that temperatures closely match solar activity. Unfortunately a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 while global temperatures have been warming, to the point where over the last 35 years sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. (Lockwood 2008).

Sun is getting hotter burning the planet according to Swiss and German scientists
“The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

It's been a while since I've heard that one. Yes, electromagentic radiation can influence climate, but the influence of all the cellphones, TVs etc in the world combined is so small it's like saying the reason my bike is slower than a Gixxer 1000 is because the Gixxer has more streamlined indicators. And that's kind of where you and I differ. Have you heard of something called Ockham's razor? Essentially that means you use the most likely explanation for a phenomenon first.

Going back to the bike analogy, last week I was riding along and suddenly the engine lost power quite dramatically. It could have meant my ignition system was shitting itself, or that I had run out of oil and was about to sieze, or even that space aliens were using a ray that killed all engines, or it could have meant I was running out of gas. Sure enough, my trip meter showed 205 km, and because I know that at around 200 km I go onto reserve I reached down and turned the tap. Sure enough seconds later the mighty triple roared back into life and away I went.

There is a most likely cause for the current climate change and every piece of research (checking the odometer, turning the fuel tap) suggests that it's human activity.

So you still think cows farting (a natural thing) its a more logical cause than us creating a word-wide microwave oven???
I think it's only put forth cause it's easily charged $$$ without affecting those due to reap the profits i.e. BP oil, Al Gore, Shell, Rothchilds, Rockefeller etc etc

[shrub]

Sun is getting hotter burning the planet according to Swiss and German scientists “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

Please, if you're going to quote someone give me a link, but I did a quick check of the Max Planck institute (who are well regarded), and found the following:

1. "If carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continue to increase unchecked, a drastic increase in the global temperature can be expected before the end of this century." Link to the paper here


2. "Despite the trend towards global warming, people in Great Britain and Central Europe will possibly experience cold winters more often in the next few years. This is the findings of a study by scientists from the University of Reading, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire and the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau. The researchers have discovered a link between low solar activity and unusually low winter temperatures in this region. It is possible that, at times of low solar activity, the mild winds from the Atlantic do not reach Europe in winter. These results do not contradict an anthropogenic climate change, which is causing the temperatures on Earth to increase on average." Link to the whole article here This paper directly contradicts your claims, so please give me a link.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

Source please because I found the following on the NASA website: "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

So you still think cows farting (a natural thing) its a more logical cause than us creating a word-wide microwave oven???
I think it's only put forth cause it's easily charged $$$ without affecting those due to reap the profits i.e. BP oil, Al Gore, Shell, Rothchilds, Rockefeller etc etc

I have never mentioned cows farting, but yes, ruminants do emit huge emounts of methane - mostly from burping, not farting - and while that is a "natural" source the concentration of cattle is not natural and is unsustainable without artificially accessing water for irrigation. And I wondered how long it would take for you to bring Al Gore into the debate, although I am usure about your rationale behind linking him with Shell, BP and the Rothchilds etc.

[Scuba_Steve]

Please, if you're going to quote someone give me a link,

here a link for ya
But I pulled that tiny extract from here and here

And I wondered how long it would take for you to bring Al Gore into the debate, although I am usure about your rationale behind linking him with Shell, BP and the Rothchilds etc.

They're all making big $$$ of this religious scam

[oneofsix]

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

I do so love the quotes like the one above from NASA. "very likely human-induced" to me means this is a guess made based on the current panic about global warming. But now NASA can be quoted as saying that global warming is happening and is human induced.

If you think that the global warming panic induced carbon trading scheme isn't about profit then you are deluding yourself. Al Gore's personal wealth has increased on the back of global warming and funnily enough with all that has been happening around oil, including global warming Shell and BP profits have been raising.

[shrub]

here a link for ya

Did you look at the date of the article? March 20, 2003, which was more than 8 years ago and since then a huge amount of research has come out on the other side of the ledger.

They're all making big $$$ of this religious scam

Ah, the money making angle. Funny how making money is such a good thing until someone else does it, and as for religion, I can't for the life of me see how religion comes into it. The debate is entirely scientific, and therefore based on reason, research and empirical data, whereas religion is based on faith in a position without requiring any proof. And the fundamentalist religious groups are overwhelmingly in your camp. I think your position probably fits most definitions of religious.

[Scuba_Steve]

Did you look at the date of the article? March 20, 2003, which was more than 8 years ago and since then a huge amount of research has come out on the other side of the ledger.

The other was 9 Aug 2010

Ah, the money making angle. Funny how making money is such a good thing until someone else does it,

I never said it was good or bad I just said this is why the scam is as it is

and as for religion, I can't for the life of me see how religion comes into it. The debate is entirely scientific, and therefore based on reason, research and empirical data,

[shrub]

I do so love the quotes like the one above from NASA. "very likely human-induced" to me means this is a guess made based on the current panic about global warming. But now NASA can be quoted as saying that global warming is happening and is human induced.

If you think that the global warming panic induced carbon trading scheme isn't about profit then you are deluding yourself. Al Gore's personal wealth has increased on the back of global warming and funnily enough with all that has been happening around oil, including global warming Shell and BP profits have been raising.

yes, the money thing again. Let me guess, you're frightened that you'll have to pay more taxes? Struggling to make ends meet? Poor you....

And of course they're going to say "very likely" because that's how scientists roll - even when they know something for sure they kick for touch. They are naturally extremely conservative, and on that note I am wastiing my time arguing with people who are entrenched in their position. There is no evidence in existence that will convince you otherwise, much like the Christian who believes in creation and refuses to even consider the evidence to the contrary.

Goodbye.

[oneofsix]

yes, the money thing again. Let me guess, you're frightened that you'll have to pay more taxes? Struggling to make ends meet? Poor you....

And of course they're going to say "very likely" because that's how scientists roll - even when they know something for sure they kick for touch. They are naturally extremely conservative, and on that note I am wastiing my time arguing with people who are entrenched in their position. There is no evidence in existence that will convince you otherwise, much like the Christian who believes in creation and refuses to even consider the evidence to the contrary.

Goodbye.

No just don't think I should have to pay for some fat bastard to get rich. If the Carbon trading and carbon taxes were going to fix anything then fine, but they aren't so it is just a fine (pun intended in case you missed it) on those least able to resist.

No Scientists don't say "very likely" when the mean certainly. The rest of the quoted article gives the lie to your attempt at glossing over the cracks there. Too many scientific sureties, well they were before all the facts were in, have been turned on there heads by later research. This is why scientists use terms like 'very likely' it means not certain and shouldn't be treated as such.

Funny you bring up religion in your final shot, because a lot of people arguing climate change or the other denomination, global warming, get very religious about there beliefs. I know you will take this the wrong way - tough - but I don't believe, call me agnostic if you like.

[Winston001]

No just don't think I should have to pay for some fat bastard to get rich. If the Carbon trading and carbon taxes were going to fix anything then fine, but they aren't so it is just a fine (pun intended in case you missed it) on those least able to resist.

I'm genuinely puzzled why you (and many others to be fair) think taxing carbon technologies is simply a scam created by some Wall Street traders?

Firstly the oil companies would scream at any rort like this.

Secondly it requires politicians to impose new taxes. Thats a death sentence to a politician - especially when the public don't understand it. Why would any pollie without good evidence agree to the idea? The Aussies have far more money than us - why haven't they been pushed by the money men into this yet? By contrast why have the Europeans with all their universities and left-wing contempt for finance been taxing carbon for the past 5 years?

Too many scientific sureties, well they were before all the facts were in, have been turned on there heads by later research.

This is a common misconception with many people. As I posted a few days ago, there have been very few revolutions in science. Instead ideas are refined and made more accurate as more experiments and data is gathered.

For example, quantum theory points to vacuum energy whereby particles wink in and out of existence in deep space. This could be the source of Dark Energy...but the Cosmological Constant (and expansion of the Universe) is at far higher energy levels than vacuum energy can account for.

So...the vacuum energy theory might be wrong. The energy may be only contained within hadrons which we hope the LHC can tell us eventually. But no revolution is taking place in science, just getting a bit wiser day by day.

Funny you bring up religion in your final shot, because a lot of people arguing climate change or the other denomination, global warming, get very religious about there beliefs. I know you will take this the wrong way - tough - but I don't believe, call me agnostic if you like.

I dunno. I think you have to give Shrub this one. The passion and emotion in global warming arguments always comes from deniers and has much in common with religious zealotry. By comparison people who think there is a problem tend to be rational and discursive, and willing to consider other points of view.