California sues carmakers over global warming

**Drunken Monkey** · 21st September 2006, 13:59

Originally Posted by Fub@r

A reversal in the earths polarity can't be compared with the effects of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity results in various types interuptions but over the short term, polar reversal would result in total shutdown of anything electrical. The western world would be the hardest hit, old joe average suburban wouldn't know how to fend for himself or cook without power

Poles did not reverse 'instantly'. Volcanic rock records show that these pole flips happened over periods of hundreds to thousands of years. During this interim, the magnetic field is weakend, and has, on some occasions, disappeared completely. Solar radiation increases go hand in hand with sunspot activity. It is the magnetic field which protects the Earth from a significant amount of solar radiation. If the poles were reversed, intermediate steps and other factors aside, it would in fact NOT effect electricity supplies as the grid and supply would still be protected by a magnetic field, just one in the opposite orientation.

Please also note there have been more than a measly 3 reversals in Earth's history. No offense, but your knowledge on this subject appears to be scatty. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal should help you with some holes in your knowledge.

**Fub@r** · 21st September 2006, 14:41

Point taken. I was remembering a doco I had seen many years ago. The way in which it was described was that these "just happened" implying over a very short time frame and would have a devastating effect on the western world in particular. But reading that wiki they are saying wont happen for another 2000 years and gradually happens. Spose its still theoritical untill modern man lives through it

**SPman** · 21st September 2006, 15:29

Originally Posted by KLOWN

also many scientits believe global warming is a load of shit, the earth goes through these changes naturally and is in a cycle, from ice age to warm then back to ice age and the "global warming" is the earth in its natural cycle.

Quite true - and even "mini' fluctuations.
But this "global warming" has been very quickly accelerated by prodigous emissions of gas and crap from human sources over the last 100 years -
and most people who actually look closely at all of whats happening tend to agree that we have triggered or accelerated this cycle.

**Milky** · 21st September 2006, 15:35

Originally Posted by The Inebriated Monkey

Indeed, the sky is falling. Did you know that frozen poles have only been a passing feature of the Earth over the last 4,600,000,000 years?

Ie it has fuck all relevance, as I don't remember humans being alive before then. What matters is how the world changes from the past few thousand years, and how we change along with it.

Originally Posted by Fub@r

Spose its still theoritical untill modern man lives through it

Respect.

**Drunken Monkey** · 21st September 2006, 15:44

Originally Posted by Milky

Ie it has fuck all relevance,

Pffft, balls to you Milky - it's completely relevant. You could bring car exhaust emissions to a complete net 0 right now and still not stop the Earth's natural cycle, be it warm up or cool down. Sueing the big 6 car manufacturers is a farce; nothing but a money and vote spinner.

**Drunken Monkey** · 21st September 2006, 15:50

Originally Posted by SPman

Quite true - and even "mini' fluctuations.
But this "global warming" has been very quickly accelerated by prodigous emissions of gas and crap from human sources over the last 100 years -

Well that's what we're tyring to say here. Read the recent junk science article on average temperature rises in the USA. Simply put, if global warming is responsible for the recent (last few years) rise in average temperatures, then why wasn't it blamed for the spike in the 1930's? If it was indeed responsible for the spike in the 1930's, then how do you explain the 30 year cooling after the 1930's which is in direct opposite correlation to the increase in industrialisation?

Originally Posted by SPman

and most people who actually look closely at all of whats happening tend to agree that we have triggered or accelerated this cycle.

This was discussed in the other G.W. thread; it's not 'most', just the 'most vocal'. Situation normal doesn't sell news time.

Can we have these threads merged before people get sick of repeating themselves?

**Milky** · 21st September 2006, 16:03

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

Pffft, balls to you Milky - it's completely relevant. You could bring car exhaust emissions to a complete net 0 right now and still not stop the Earth's natural cycle, be it warm up or cool down. Sueing the big 6 car manufacturers is a farce; nothing but a money and vote spinner.

Maybe I was a little short. I intended to convey the idea that as we have not lived through those periods before, we cannot say that we are able to live in the way we have grown used to, or even live through them at all.

What the reason is for the change is moot - I think most accept that there is a change - the point is how do we mitigate the effects of the change. I accept that the co2/no2 etc levels are historically high given what we can gather from ice samples. Cutting greenhouse emissions down to zero worldwide might well not stop the 'natural' cycle now, given melting permafrost etc etc.

I totally agree with you on the last point though. It has shades of big tobacco etc - We won't accept responsibility for taking up smoking/driving SUVs, so we will blame the producers.

**Fub@r** · 21st September 2006, 16:04

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

it's not 'most', just the 'most vocal'.

And if your "most vocal" on the politically incorrect view ie: Global Warming is a crock you end up like David Bellamy out of work and rejected!

So:
pro-global warming = keep your job

anti-global warming = no job and no funding for research in future

Not exactly ideal for a fair debate

**The_Dover** · 21st September 2006, 16:11

fuck it, i'll be dead before we're flooded or baked.

**Drunken Monkey** · 21st September 2006, 16:30

Originally Posted by Milky

Maybe I was a little short. I intended to convey the idea that as we have not lived through those periods before, we cannot say that we are able to live in the way we have grown used to, or even live through them at all.

Sounds fair. I want to point out that cutting emissions isn't necessarily a bad thing though, there are certainly micro-climate changes which will benefit from reduced emissions, e.g. less city smog, and other follow on benefits. I just wish people would stop buying into this "man is the cause of G.W." hype.

**Ixion** · 21st September 2006, 16:39

Originally Posted by Milky

,,

What the reason is for the change is moot - I think most accept that there is a change - the point is how do we mitigate the effects of the change. I accept that the co2/no2 etc levels are historically high given what we can gather from ice samples. Cutting greenhouse emissions down to zero worldwide might well not stop the 'natural' cycle now, given melting permafrost etc etc.
,,.

So. Why want to stop the change.

What's wrong with a warmer world. Good case that the world is undesireably cold at present. Far more of the Earth is underinhabited/underutilised at present becasue it is too cold or too dry, than because it is too warm/wet.

So sea levels rise a bit. Who cares, it's slow plenty of time to adapt and move . Warmer, wetter world, all good by me, bring it on.

**Michaelt** · 21st September 2006, 16:59

Originally Posted by Ixion

So. Why want to stop the change.

What's wrong with a warmer world. Good case that the world is undesireably cold at present. Far more of the Earth is underinhabited/underutilised at present becasue it is too cold or too dry, than because it is too warm/wet.

So sea levels rise a bit. Who cares, it's slow plenty of time to adapt and move . Warmer, wetter world, all good by me, bring it on.

By no means do I believe in the artificially-induced global warming crap, but I can't agree with what you're saying here.

If the icecaps rise, the atmosphere and land won't become much more humid, whereas the amount of useable land will decrease due to rising sea levels, forcing us into those underinhabited/underutilised areas, which won't be much better than they are now, and certainly nowhere near as habitable as the lands we'll lose.

Also, I like a cold, dry climate, I'm looking into summer research scholarships to antarctica even.

Michael

**Big Dave** · 22nd September 2006, 09:39

It's the depletion of the Ozone that was ever my concern.
I have aleady lost a chunk of nose to skin cancer from it.
But I've read here that there is nothing to worry about so it's all good. Tui anyone?

**Drunken Monkey** · 22nd September 2006, 09:46

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It's the depletion of the Ozone that was ever my concern.
I have aleady lost a chunk of nose to skin cancer from it.
But I've read here that there is nothing to worry about so it's all good. Tui anyone?

Don't confuse issues.