Notices
Results 1 to 70 of 70

Thread: Climate change - we've got 10 years

  1. #1 Climate change - we've got 10 years 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    15
    Climate change - we've got 10 years
    If you ever thought UN Development Reports were dull statistical tomes, full of little more than dry facts and figures, then the latest report - published this week on climate change - will very soon disabuse you.

    READ MORE


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Administrator's Note: Please do not copy/paste text from other sites. Short excerpts followed by original commentary is consistent with fair use, however. This would also inspire discussion to see you provide your own commentary and opinion, which is more appropriate for a discussion forum.

    An example might be:



    Link to the site you are quoting in a snappy title

    A quoted bit of text from the article you found worth commenting on or interesting enough to discuss here.
    The Green Party's Caroline Lucas hails a UN report that she argues brings shame upon world leaders before attacking Gordon Brown's "monumental failure of vision"

    If you ever thought UN Development Reports were dull statistical tomes, full of little more than dry facts and figures, then the latest report - published this week on climate change - will very soon disabuse you.
    Followed by your own commentary here.


    The way you're doing it, BSG CORP, leads me to believe you're just using our site to spam the link in your signature and your profile. Advertising this link is okay and fair, but only if you actually provide genuine discussion and not simply regurgitate science news from random sites.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    I love how the claims get more and more outrageous every single day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    In my understanding, this is because we are seeing accelerated global warming.

    A current news piece from Sydney:

    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opini...211-16629.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    I love how the claims get more and more outrageous every single day.
    Don't joke about it. We all died of AIDS a decade ago. Civilization was so ravaged Africa was depopulated and the streets of New York are empty...and it was all predicted....we just refused 'to accept the facts'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Were such predictions regarding AIDS truly made? I don't recall a prediction of anything beyond "pandemic" which certainly happened/exists.

    I'd be interested to see references to back up the claim that the depopulation of Africa and New York were predicted.

    pandemic (from Greek παν pan all + δήμος demos people): an epidemic that spreads through human populations across a large region (for example a continent), or even worldwide.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming. Amusing, however, how a drought or heat spell in some speck of the globe ( ie Greece or Britain) gets the cultists all frothing at the mouth and screaming in mass hysteria 'more evidence....panic...more evidence....help... ) An area over 300 times larger than Greece is evidence of 'weather' but when Greece gets hot it's 'global warming and the end is near'.

    The global warming cultists are akin to Creationists....cherry pick evidence 'to prove' their beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming.
    Excuse the pun, but please burn in hell. Climate change indicates extreme variations in weather, and this is a very real occurrence. What you're doing is ignoring this, and instead focusing on the claims of profiteering ignorant parties. Some still stick to the words "global warming" when they mean climate change anyway (don't ask me why). In fact, earth is experiencing drastic climate shifts, but definitely not in warming alone.

    The problem is that most people latched on to the early idea that the earth is warming. They also latched on to such claims as carbon emissions contributing to more severe weather. I disagree entirely, and instead point to the obvious damage it's doing TO OUR HEALTH. Nothing like breathing toxic air!

    I can't expressed how much anger I feel on this subject. But let me assure you, if you do some research you'll find that a number of parties are making good profits from various global warming scares. It is indeed much like religion, it misleads the public entirely and makes a good profit while doing so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    ...please burn in hell.
    Thought that didn't exist Jeremy?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming. Amusing, however, how a drought or heat spell in some speck of the globe ( ie Greece or Britain) gets the cultists all frothing at the mouth and screaming in mass hysteria 'more evidence....panic...more evidence....help... ) An area over 300 times larger than Greece is evidence of 'weather' but when Greece gets hot it's 'global warming and the end is near'.

    The global warming cultists are akin to Creationists....cherry pick evidence 'to prove' their beliefs.
    This forecast, like the corresponding one for the USA which predicts on average a warmer than normal winter, are, if I'm not mistaken, made because there is a fairly strong la Nina. A warmer USA and a cooler Canada are the expected results of a strong la Nina. This says nothing about underlying trends.

    Can you give a link or reference to some of these frothing cultist who are making the sort of claims you describe please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming.
    Excuse the pun, but please burn in hell. Climate change indicates extreme variations in weather, and this is a very real occurrence. What you're doing is ignoring this, and instead focusing on the claims of profiteering ignorant parties. Some still stick to the words "global warming" when they mean climate change anyway (don't ask me why). In fact, earth is experiencing drastic climate shifts, but definitely not in warming alone.

    The problem is that most people latched on to the early idea that the earth is warming. They also latched on to such claims as carbon emissions contributing to more severe weather. I disagree entirely, and instead point to the obvious damage it's doing TO OUR HEALTH. Nothing like breathing toxic air!

    I can't expressed how much anger I feel on this subject. But let me assure you, if you do some research you'll find that a number of parties are making good profits from various global warming scares. It is indeed much like religion, it misleads the public entirely and makes a good profit while doing so.
    Toxicity in the air is a local and not global issue related to climate. there is confusion about carbon emissions and pollution...not that the global warming cultists won't run around in hysterical frenzy with their knickers in a knot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Toxicity in the air is a local and not global issue related to climate. there is confusion about carbon emissions and pollution...not that the global warming cultists won't run around in hysterical frenzy with their knickers in a knot.
    Did I SAY it was related to climate? No. That was the entire point of mentioning it. And, incidentally, it is a global issue. Toxicity isn't only in the air but, um, EVERYWHERE ELSE. it's a growing problem I'm afraid of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    You are afraid of it? Tried deep breathing? Less caffeine?

    Actually it is much less of an issue than 40 years ago. In western countries the water, air and food we eat is much better than in earlier times. There is much more regulation of heavy metals (lead, mercury, etc.), the water quality of lakes and rivers, etc. tThe 'stuff' coming out of smokestacks and the tailpipe of your car is much cleaner. Still an issue but nothing for you to be afraid of. Even the paint of a kid's playpen was lead based only a half century ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Yeah, fine, this we know. But you're only half correct. While a lot of the more deadly substances are mostly removed, tons and tons of less deadly (but harmful) chemicals are still in the air. Especially in major cities. If you've ever been to one, and you've been living in the country, you'll notice the air hit you like acid. Even with small towns.

    One thing that's really horrible about this "global warming" crap is that businesses are being rewarded for reducing CO2...but that sometimes increases emissions of other chemicals. And CO2 is about as deadly as a tank of water. I'd prefer the CO2.

    As an example of this, try living in the country for a week and running. Your body has a much easier job at using its energy in a cleaner environment. Now do the same thing in a metropolis. You'll be gagging. People that survive in these environments are much less healthy no matter HOW you look at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Yeah, fine, this we know. But you're only half correct. While a lot of the more deadly substances are mostly removed, tons and tons of less deadly (but harmful) chemicals are still in the air. Especially in major cities. If you've ever been to one, and you've been living in the country, you'll notice the air hit you like acid. Even with small towns.

    One thing that's really horrible about this "global warming" crap is that businesses are being rewarded for reducing CO2...but that sometimes increases emissions of other chemicals. And CO2 is about as deadly as a tank of water. I'd prefer the CO2.

    As an example of this, try living in the country for a week and running. Your body has a much easier job at using its energy in a cleaner environment. Now do the same thing in a metropolis. You'll be gagging. People that survive in these environments are much less healthy no matter HOW you look at it.
    It just goes to show the wild assumptions enable us to see the situation more clearly. When you see one of these wild assumptions like 'We've got ten years' it shows you how ridiculous it is. And as much as I don't usually do this, but completley agree with Jeremy.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    Ok, I live on Ottawa, Ontario...(yes, canada)

    And I can personally say the winter we are having is COLD...but not abnormally. last year was a bit warm, but it was way cold in january. We're having -15 degree C temps right now. And lots of snow. But anyways, I like the cold, and snow, and ice, and all that jazz.

    You know, if we could get a big group of scientist together who were non-biased on global warming, and actually did some work on WHAT is going on. instead of trying to prove or disprove the CO2 warming theory.

    We need some visionaries to really get the scientific brains turning again.

    Is there solid proof that CO2 causes global warming? No. Is there solid proof that this is part of a natural cycle? No.

    We don't know, and we should stop trying to act like we own this earth. We don't, we come from the elements that it is composed of, when we die, we go right back to the earth.


    That was my rant for the day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Is there solid proof that CO2 causes global warming?
    No, it's only "very likely" that CO2 and other anthropogenic gases cause it. "Very likely" means a 90% probability. Solid proof only occurs in mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Is there solid proof that CO2 causes global warming?
    No, it's only "very likely" that CO2 and other anthropogenic gases cause it. "Very likely" means a 90% probability. Solid proof only occurs in mathematics.
    Bullshit? There is NO solid statistical evidence! That's the whole point! A lot of the statistics are along the lines of "It wasn't until Alfred Wegener came along and proposed plate tectonics that we got evidence that the continents were drifting as a result of human activities." If anyone CARES to check the fossil records, CO2 always rises with temperature. This is obvious, as ice containing CO2 melts (amongst other things).

    Also, need I mention the sun itself is getting hotter? Nothing like NASA data proving man-made warming incorrect!

    I've not seen ANYTHING about "global warming" that equates to unbiased objective evidence. Merely misinterpreted statistics to keep their multi-billion dollar lie afloat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I've not seen ANYTHING about "global warming" that equates to unbiased objective evidence.
    What you have or haven't seen is of no interest to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Bullshit? There is NO solid statistical evidence! That's the whole point! A lot of the statistics are along the lines of "It wasn't until Alfred Wegener came along and proposed plate tectonics that we got evidence that the continents were drifting as a result of human activities." If anyone CARES to check the fossil records, CO2 always rises with temperature. This is obvious, as ice containing CO2 melts (amongst other things).
    Yes, and as the earths obit around the sun changes slightly, the earth receives more heat which in turn raises the oceans temperatures which releases more GHG. THATS IS WHAT THE 10 YEAR PREDICTION IS ALL ABOUT. As we (presumable) raise the earths temperature rather than the earth.

    Also, need I mention the sun itself is getting hotter? Nothing like NASA data proving man-made warming incorrect!
    Thats a complete load of shit, over the last 40 years we have been receiving slightly less heat/energy from the sun.

    I've not seen ANYTHING about "global warming" that equates to unbiased objective evidence. Merely misinterpreted statistics to keep their multi-billion dollar lie afloat.
    Then please provide a another explanation for the recent warming.

    ---------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    You know, if we could get a big group of scientist together who were non-biased on global warming, and actually did some work on WHAT is going on. instead of trying to prove or disprove the CO2 warming theory.
    We have already done that. And they came to the conclusion (as Bunbury said) that 90% of the recent warming was "Very likely" due to man. That includes changes to the landscape as well as the release of extra GHG and other things. So do you think we should just sit around and find out what will happen ? Or should we actually do something about it based on the best of our knowledge so far ?

    Or look at it another way. Over the last 10/20 years the number of people living with AIDS/HIV in Canada has fallen year after year. Why ? Because they did somthing about it. Or we could choose to go down the road of some African countries and do nothing, in those countries it has been rising year after year, to the point were it affects millions of people rather that a few thousand.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Yes, and as the earths obit around the sun changes slightly, the earth receives more heat which in turn raises the oceans temperatures which releases more GHG. THATS IS WHAT THE 10 YEAR PREDICTION IS ALL ABOUT. As we (presumable) raise the earths temperature rather than the earth.
    No. It's about man made WARMING. Getting closer to the sun simply means we're entering another tropical period. HARDLY something to be concerned about, as the earth is fully equipped to handle changes. And so are we. Sort of.

    Thats a complete load of shit, over the last 40 years we have been receiving slightly less heat/energy from the sun.
    ORLY?

    1
    2
    3
    4

    This could continue for TONS OF NUMBER LINKS. Research shows the sun is burning hotter, some say for the past 60 years its been slowly getting hotter. If you'd prefer, I could locate data myself and DO THE MATH. HINT. FUCKING HINT.

    Then please provide a another explanation for the recent warming.
    Links above. QED. Who told you those lies and slander?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. It's about man made WARMING. Getting closer to the sun simply means we're entering another tropical period. HARDLY something to be concerned about, as the earth is fully equipped to handle changes. And so are we. Sort of.
    Yes, i'm just trying to explain why the level of CO2 increased in the past after the temperature rises. This is what we would be doing artificially by raising the average global temperature.

    This could continue for TONS OF NUMBER LINKS. Research shows the sun is burning hotter, some say for the past 60 years its been slowly getting hotter. If you'd prefer, I could locate data myself and DO THE MATH. HINT. FUCKING HINT.
    Yes the sun has been burning hotter over the last 60 years compared to the last 1000 years, but, the solar output over the last 40 years and in particular the last 20 has been decreasing.
    Link to paper publish in the Royal Society.
    Link to a newspaper which is easier on the eye.

    There is no doubt that the sun has been the major reason for warmings and coolings outside of the malkovich cycles for billions of years, however over the last 40 years the sun has been getting cool-fucking-er whereas the earths global temperature has been getting warm-fucking-er. Which can be more clearly seen in this graph. (Please ignore the CO2)


    HINT: Try not to read too much into newspaper articles, they are only trying to keep their multi-billion dollar business afloat.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Yes, i'm just trying to explain why the level of CO2 increased in the past after the temperature rises. This is what we would be doing artificially by raising the average global temperature.
    .... I'm going to try and prevent strangling you at this point.

    There is no doubt that the sun has been the major reason for warmings and coolings outside of the malkovich cycles for billions of years, however over the last 40 years the sun has been getting cool-fucking-er whereas the earths global temperature has been getting warm-fucking-er. Which can be more clearly seen in this graph. (Please ignore the CO2)
    Funny thing about that. Most statistics rely on global weather station reporting. Perhaps we ("we" being you) should see how many of them were closed down in recent years, specifically in colder areas, bringing the average temperature up?

    Aside from that suspected statistics error, your graph is ABSURD. that's SUNSPOT NUMBER. Not SUN TEMPERATURE. Yes there are usually correlations between the two, but not always.

    Regardless of the cause, mars is heating up even. Nearly every planet, including moons like Triton, are experiencing warming periods (look this up). http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

    We are NOT causing an increase in temperature OR CO2. The assumption that CO2 can cause warming is, in itself, stupid. to quote wikipedia
    As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume
    Yes. CO2, which composes .0384% of our atmosphere, can cause catastrophic temperature increases. No. That doesn't even make sense logically. On the other hand, temperature increasing the planets CO2 output DOES make sense. And the sun has increased output, regardless of your graph.

    HINT: Try not to read too much into newspaper articles, they are only trying to keep their multi-billion dollar business afloat.
    most newspaper articles I link to have a thing called "accurate information". Global warming supporters should try it sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    Jeremy,

    I totally agree with you.

    We humans put out maybe what...6.5 giga-tons a year of CO2?
    what about the massive amounts from rotting leaves? Animals and other wildlife? THE OCEAN??



    Since we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere lags the earth temps by about 800 years, maybe some of the recent rise could be attributed to the Medieval Warm Period which...surprise surprise, happened about 800 years ago...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    The warming that is presently occuring cannot be fully explained by increased radiation from the sun, Milankovich variables, or other nonanthropogenic factors. (That is what is unique to the current warming in comparison to previous warming events. ) Although there was a correction to warming models in 2003 based on revised estimates of total solar irradiation, scientists involved in those corrections have not disputed the role that greenhouse gases play.

    Anthropogenic green house gas emissions, which we can estimate fairly well as we keep reasonable records of what is pumped/mined sold and burned (as well as being able to measure the fraction of CO2 in the air that originates from fossil fuel via isotopic analysis), go quite a ways to explaining the departure of temperature (ie warming) to the climate that would be predicted by natural factors alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming. Amusing, however, how a drought or heat spell in some speck of the globe ( ie Greece or Britain) gets the cultists all frothing at the mouth and screaming in mass hysteria 'more evidence....panic...more evidence....help... ) An area over 300 times larger than Greece is evidence of 'weather' but when Greece gets hot it's 'global warming and the end is near'.

    The global warming cultists are akin to Creationists....cherry pick evidence 'to prove' their beliefs.
    Variations in temperature are weather.

    When there is a steady rise of "hottest (insert time interval) on record" compared to "coldest (insert time interval) in x years" (an important distinction) then a trend of an overall increase in temperature becomes apparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Aside from that suspected statistics error, your graph is ABSURD. that's SUNSPOT NUMBER. Not SUN TEMPERATURE. Yes there are usually correlations between the two, but not always.
    Yes a correlation exists between the two right up until the late 70's, that's the point. Our readings of total solar irradiance only go back to 1979 which makes it hard to make a comparison, sunspot numbers and temperature readings go back to the 17th century and beyond. The higher the number of sunspots the higher the temperature. You are claiming that the sun is the major cause of the recent warming on earth. The suns total solar irradiance has remained steady/decreased slightly over the last 20/40 years whilst the earth’s average global temperature has increased over the same period. The sun is not the cause of the recent warming. This can be backed up with this scientific paper published this year by the Royal Society.

    Funny thing about that. Most statistics rely on global weather station reporting. Perhaps we ("we" being you) should see how many of them were closed down in recent years, specifically in colder areas, bringing the average temperature up?
    Satellite temperature readings also show the earth’s average temperature going up. Another thing to consider is that night time temperature readings (both land and satellite based) show a greater increase during the night. This is what would be expected with an increase in anthropogenic GHG as apposed to an increase in TSI.

    Regardless of the cause, mars is heating up even. Nearly every planet, including moons like Triton, are experiencing warming periods
    No. Mars, Triton, Neptune and Pluto are showing genuine signs of warming. On mars we have seen melting in patches in a single region on the southern ice cap over the last 3 martian years. For a comparison, the temperature readings between the Mars landers Viking and Mars Rovers show a decrease in temperatures. Nobody would be stupid enough to declare that Mars is heading into an ice age based on that though, would they ? Triton was entering its southern summer period back in 1998 when it was discovered that it’s was getting warmer. As for Neptune and Pluto, after a little googling causes suggested are varied but include changes in orbit to internal changes as possible explanations as well as changes in the suns output.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy
    Yes. CO2, which composes .0384% of our atmosphere, can cause catastrophic temperature increases. No. That doesn't even make sense logically. On the other hand, temperature increasing the planets CO2 output DOES make sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    Since we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere lags the earth temps by about 800 years, maybe some of the recent rise could be attributed to the Medieval Warm Period which...surprise surprise, happened about 800 years ago…
    Your right it doesn't make any sense. The co2 and other greenhouse gases which are being released by humans have only raised temperature level by 0.6c over the last 150 year, this is not a 'catastrophic temperature increase'. But through that small increase other changes happen such as a lowering of global ice cover which reflects sun light, increases in water vapour (and cloud cover which is another line of evidence against the sun) and other potentially catastrophic affects such as the release of a maximum estimated 400 GT of methane stored in the perma frost of Siberia alone. Methane which is 25 time more affective than CO2.

    The CO2 increase in the atmosphere and the oceans we are pretty sure is ours. The co2 released from plants and animals is carbon-14 the co2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is mainly carbon-12, the levels of carbon-12 have been increasing whereas the levels of carbon-14 have been falling. The halflife of carbon-14 is estimated to be around 6000 years and the lag between ocean temperatures and the maximum co2 released is around 800-1000 years. As for the medieval warm period, try this.

    We humans put out maybe what...6.5 giga-tons a year of CO2?
    what about the massive amounts from rotting leaves? Animals and other wildlife? THE OCEAN??
    Humans emit about 26 GT per year with a further 6 GT per year though land changes. Haven’t rotting leaves, animals and the ocean always existed ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    if there was acually a world crisis and that CO2 caused most of it, wouldn't it be reasoneble to stopp selling fuel, to stopp produsing electrisity with the use of CO2.

    But the again what would happen to the world then, well I'd survie cause most of Norway runs on water power and it is compleatly CO2 free. yay.
    And I could walk to work. no prob there.

    but what would hapen to all other humens that didn't hava a natur friendly way to creat electrisity, hmm, I guess ther will be alot mor 3rd world countrys soon then.

    So think about what your saying about global warming cause if you believ in it you shouldn't be spending lost of electrisity on telling me.(and other people that don't care.)

    oh yeah and for abot 10 - 20 years ago there was 3,000,000,000 people on this planet, now we're closing up to 10,000,000,000 is it wierd that the there is an increese of CO2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    if there was acually a world crisis and that CO2 caused most of it, wouldn't it be reasoneble to stopp selling fuel, to stopp produsing electrisity with the use of CO2.

    But the again what would happen to the world then, well I'd survie cause most of Norway runs on water power and it is compleatly CO2 free. yay.
    And I could walk to work. no prob there.
    Uh, Norway is the third largest exporter of oil in the world. You think if everyone stopped selling hydrocarbon fuel it wouldn't affect you? Think again. Norway is admirably green internally, but your wealth comes from burning hydrocarbons elsewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    if there was acually a world crisis and that CO2 caused most of it, wouldn't it be reasoneble to stopp selling fuel, to stopp produsing electrisity with the use of CO2.

    But the again what would happen to the world then, well I'd survie cause most of Norway runs on water power and it is compleatly CO2 free. yay.
    And I could walk to work. no prob there.
    Over the last decade Norway has been importing increasingly larger amounts of electricity. As it stands at the moment 15% of Norway's electricity is imported, mainly from Denmark and Germany both of which use coal for the majority of their power generation. The short fall in Norway's power generating has been during the winter time because of lower than usual rainfall. I would also like to point out that Britain is aiming to produce all of its industrial and household electricity by wind power and nuclear power by 2020. 7,000 sea based wind turbines and 20-30 nuclear power stations based on current sites already producing nuclear power.

    but what would hapen to all other humens that didn't hava a natur friendly way to creat electrisity, hmm, I guess ther will be alot mor 3rd world countrys soon then.
    Norway's GDP is currently US$346 billion. Of which $160 billion is in exports, the UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, USA, Sweden and Finland make up 70% of those exports. Should the shit hit the fan in those country's, Norway's economy would take a massive blow so although you may be able to walk to work, whether there will be a job once you get there is a different matter.

    So think about what your saying about global warming cause if you believ in it you shouldn't be spending lost of electrisity on telling me.(and other people that don't care.)
    I have done many things to try and lessen my own personal contribution to the problem. Amongst others, I use energy saving light bulbs, turn off unused electrical appliances, use public transport (sometime I even walk to work!!) and I am currently writing this on a specially bought power saving laptop. If you and others don’t care that’s fine by me, I was simply trying to have a debate with Jeremy and others about the possible causes of global warming based on any scientific evidence we could find. That’s why it’s called The Science Forum and not The Posting Complete and Utter Bollocks in Poor English Whilst Burning German Coal Forum.

    oh yeah and for abot 10 - 20 years ago there was 3,000,000,000 people on this planet, now we're closing up to 10,000,000,000 is it wierd that the there is an increese of CO2
    20 years ago the worlds population was 4.8 billion, 10 years ago it was 5.7 billion, today it is around 6.6 billion. I can’t see what point you are trying to make other than stating the obvious.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    oh yeah and for abot 10 - 20 years ago there was 3,000,000,000 people on this planet, now we're closing up to 10,000,000,000 is it wierd that the there is an increese of CO2
    20 years ago the worlds population was 4.8 billion, 10 years ago it was 5.7 billion, today it is around 6.6 billion. I can’t see what point you are trying to make other than stating the obvious.
    I don't understand what he means either? Don't see what the estimated world population has to do with it?

    I'd think though, that more people means more energy requirements means more CO2 emission.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    Cat, in response to you, I'm going to make a lengthy excerpt from a long conversation I had with a colleague. The following is credited entirely to him, and he wishes to remain anonymous. I'll just put it simply, and say that he's vastly more intelligent than I am.

    Wow. Reading his last post, I've come to the conclusion this guy is pretty much unassailable. I'd counsel you to simply take your ball and go home. Look at this bullshit he's citing: http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

    I like how it claims the medieval warm period and little ice age are crafted by manipulating the data using simple averages. Um no. I have seen the temperature graphs for these periods many times from many different sources. They don't just have a "higher average" followed by a "somewhat lower average". They have changing levels as depicted in this graph, only more random and with more deviation. As an aside, this visual difference could simply be due to a higher resolution in the graphs covering smaller time periods, but honestly this particular graph actually looks fake.

    I mean, seriously, the little ice age that apparently didn't exist is implicated in the famine and death during the dark ages, and what weakened the population to be ravaged by the black death. In fact, some views of history suggest that the black death actually dealt less real damage than the extreme famines which are actually recorded to have happened due to much colder and shorter growing seasons. But, y'know. The little ice age never happened. This suprisingly smooth graph proves it.

    Not only does this source dare to suggest the IPCC is credible, its data is coming from the IPCC. The IPCC is one of the few organizations that we now know for a fact fabricates data to serve a political agenda. So I repeat, "look at this bullshit he's citing".

    "By drawing a horizontal line and by adjusting its position, we can divide the steadily decreasing trend into two arbitrary regions. The regions corresponding to earlier years will have temperatures above the horizontal line, while the region for later years will have temperatures below the line." I just need to express it again. This is NOT what graphs depicting these two "arbitrary" periods look like at all. Either call the graphs manufactured lies or accept that they can't be the result of simple statistical manipulation. These people disgust me. The explanation is flat out wrong and specifically designed to convince the ignorant and gullible. Just like the IPCC as a whole.

    There's no point in arguing anymore. This guy has chosen to see what he's chosen to see. He accepts these blatantly false arguments at face value even though he is smart enough that he should know better. If his own intellect is unable to defeat his dogma, what makes you think you have a chance?

    As a tangent, which I might as well embrace because the debate is over, this is something that I've been finding increasingly common and increasingly distressing.

    Cat1981 is by no means stupid. He is very intelligent, and I can tell it's not a facade. He's probably a teacher or at least a University graduate. He is the type of person being referred to when the claim is made that Liberals have higher IQs than Conservatives.

    What disturbs me is seeing these intelligent people that, when approached on issues unrelated to their particular dogmas, can be amazing sources of knowledge and, yes, even wisdom. Yet when approached on an issue for which they have engrained BELIEFS, be it religion or politics or science, they are completely unreasonable and seemingly unaware of how very ridiculous some of their claims can become.

    Cat1981 is so blinded by zealotry that he is unable to see or comprehend what could possibly be wrong with the above argument for "meaningless manipulation for data". His belief in climate change and probably that humans are generally evil is so deep and so strong that he is flat out unwilling to ACCEPT that the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited as an instituion that even loosely believes in the tenets of science much less as a serious research organization.

    When approached on the subject of his dogmatic beliefs, even his own vast knowledge and wisdom must collapse to its knees in front of an impenetrable barrier. Perhaps we all have barriers. What I know is that no amount of concrete evidence, let alone mere reasoned discourse, will ever penetrate this barrier. It is akin to the hardcore religiously devoted atheist who wouldn't believe in God if he came down from the heavens and demonstrated his existence personally.

    If we were suddenly plunged into an ice age, Cat1981 would remain unwilling or even unable to release his deeply held beliefs. He would find ways to claim that the ice age was actually caused by heretofore unknown climate mechanisms that were still triggered by the global warming MOST CERTAINLY caused by anthropogenic green house gases. Furthermore, he would find solidarity in like-minded individuals who share his beliefs and would manufacture more "evidence" to support them, just as the IPCC has done in our era.
    He also took care of your assertion that the sun rapidly heated then cooled within the past 60 years.

    According to him, the period during which the global temperature was falling enough to evoke terror is the same period during and after which the Sun spiked in temperature. Logically, it seems his assertion that the majority of recent heating happened during and before this time should be wrong, and that instead the heating to modern temperatures occurred over a longer period that he is claiming (how about, say, 40 or 50 of the past 60 years instead of just the first 20?). Taking his claim for granted, the only logical conclusion is that something has far more effect on Earth temperature than the Sun's temperature. Is he willing to assert than fossil emissions actually fell dramatically between 1940 and 1970, before skyrocketing again in recent times?
    And with that, it's completed. I had spent some time writing a good reply, but before I finished he went off on a lengthy tangent I deemed more descriptive than my own reply. Thus, why I used his words rather than my own. He says them better.

    Earlier, he also attacked the Royal Society study you kept citing on the grounds that it was hardly scientific at all, resembling more a partisan website trying to push an agenda than a serious research paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    ... and say that he's vastly more intelligent than I am.
    ... but honestly this particular graph actually looks fake.
    disbelieving data just because you don't like them doesn't strike me as very intelligent - i'd rather see a solid explanation of how the data were collected and interpreted to arrive at the Nielsen graph (i.e. what was sampled where - i seem to remember that while there was an overall global cooling trend, the severity of the little ice age in Europe was a localised phenomenon)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    Anything else you require? The IPCC has been known to, on repeated occasions, forge data by inaccurate calculations. This is definitely suspected to be one of them. If you want to fully understand the scope of IPCC's crimes, a simple google can shed more light.

    Also, disbelieving in data because it seems fishy based upon EXPERIENCE is not unintelligent. Need I point out that he was, in that very discussion, attacking the same dogmatic behavior? Since I know him personally, I can assure you the suggestion that he'd do so is hilarious.

    http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

    For further reading about that particular controversy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i think the New Scientist's summary of the debate is still relevant, of which i want to highlight the final few paragraphs :

    Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

    It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

    Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems, and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.


    calling a study a fraud because of nitpicking about methodology when later studies have substantially validated the original conclusion is dishonest
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    calling a study a fraud because of nitpicking about methodology when later studies have substantially validated the original conclusion is dishonest
    The second link I gave details a number of arguments against the hockey-stick graph. Not only do people like my colleague think it looks fake, but a large number of people are attacking the methodology behind it.

    What is really funny, is your appeal to numbers/authority. The number of studies does NOT validate an original study. Ever. Flawed methodology will produce flawed results.

    And, correct me if I'm wrong, but studies are based upon methodology. It is, after all, how they are conducted that influences the results. So if the later studies prove it, even though other people have put into severe doubt the accuracy (you apparently didn't read my link), then they too are heavily suspect.

    As for your "summary", I call bullshit. It's not politically neutral, objective, or scientific. Why you turned to a NEWSPAPER website is beyond me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the big question is : do inaccuracies in the methodology make a substantial difference to the end result ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Guest
    Apologies for sounding arrogant, but obviously. If you search for the various methodology problems with what particular graph (like the link I gave you), you'll find it makes a substantial difference in outcome.

    And, unless I'm wrong, we have different definitions of methodology...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    what i'm trying to get at is that the essence of a theory can still be sound even if another part of the theory and/or its methodology has been refuted

    e.g. Darwin's views on heredity and the causes of variation were dead wrong, but in the end this didn't matter for the essential correctness of his theory of natural selection

    in short, it's not good enough to refute aspects of a theory, you also have to give a good indication that the refutation is fatal to the essence of the theory in question
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Guest
    You comparison to Darwin's theory of evolution is simply inappropriate. We don't teach those views which have been falsified. The rest of the theory stands because it's based upon falsifiable concepts that have not been clearly disproven.

    This graph is not backed up by scientifically valid evidence. I'm not saying global warming is a joke. The graph is definitely a joke. It's possible for global warming to be true. But the graph is a joke.

    It's not good enough to have a theory. You need to back it up with falsifiable evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Always Being Right"

    37. A faulty proof refutes his whole position

    Should your opponent be in the right, but, luckily for your contention, choose a faulty proof, you can easily manage to refute it, and then claim that you have thus refuted his whole position. This is the trick which ought to be one of the first. It is, at bottom, an expedient by which an argument against the opponent himself is put forward as an argument that applies in general against his proposition.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Since I'm not one to presume the worst, please tell me you're not accusing me of what I just clarified. I clarified that the graph is false, and that global warming is still possible. The exact opposite of your quotation.

    If that quote is in fact directed towards me, I wont refrain from calling you downright stupid. End of discussion. I wont continue with someone that can't even comprehend what I'm saying.

    Your responses can be best categorized as a large straw man argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If that quote is in fact directed towards me, ...
    it was not - it was a general comment on the level of debate between protagonists in the global warming debate
    it also makes it very hard for the objective outsider to distinguish fact from fiction
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Precisely why I posted to begin with. I prefer facts over fiction, after all. Abiding by rules of logic is just a bonus for the reader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    From my standpoint the jury on Global warming is - of today - still undecided. I mean - in Switzerland glaciologists discovered trees released from a glacier that were growing around Cesar's reign. This means that during that time trees were able to thrive at hights that are these days covered in ice (well, not any more) and in some places temperatures will decrease insted of increase due to "local" effects e.g. large ocean currents etc.

    The question I'd rather ask myself is: I'd like to compare this to a detonating mechanism for a bomb that could go off. You are sitting on said bomb, not knowing how big the detonation will be when it goes off. Could be a firecracker or Hiroshima-style. The mechanism is a black box with a tremendous amount knobs, buttons and dials, largely without markings on them. And you suspect that there are other buttons on the inside which you can not really see. Now if you where the guy to defuse this mechanism, what would you rather do? Just tamper with any ole button you see, turn all the dials to min and max and back and shake the mechanism wildly? Well then you got either cojones the size of bowling balls made out of SS317 or no brain at all.
    Or would you try to find out what makes the bomb go off and what size the detonation will be, at the same time avoiding anything that could set off the mechanism? So why not assume the worst and prepare for it? And when one fine day someone shows up and presents the data telling you that everything is fine than you can go on wasting precious hydrocarbons with gasguzzling SUVs and houses without insulation andsoonandsoforth.

    And we will be running out of fossil fuels sooner or later anyway so mankind will be forced to rethink their strategy anyway.......if it's geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear fusion or any other form of energy generation .............er conversion.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    Well I wouldn't usually tamper with a bomb that could be the size of Hiroshima, but since we're all going to die sometime why not give it a shot.

    Awsome sig btw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    guys guys guys... stop the stupid flame war. I know you both have wildly differing views on the whole anthropogenic global warming debate, but seriously, it can be expressed in different ways.

    maybe you two should take a look at my disregarded thread that i think was called "Arguments for and against MMGW" (shoulda called it anthropogenic)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: Climate change - we've got 10 years 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by BSG CORP
    Climate change - we've got 10 years
    If you ever thought UN Development Reports were dull statistical tomes, full of little more than dry facts and figures, then the latest report - published this week on climate change - will very soon disabuse you.

    READ MORE
    Excellent. I like warmer weather. Maybe some colder claimes will grow more crops. So?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    If anyone is going to claim that north america is warming because of CO2 "global warming" because of the couple of warmer winters in the past decade, can just look out the window today to see that...wow, we've already had one giant winter storm..and guess what, i'm right in the middle of one right now! 30-40cm of snow! and its about -20 out right now. Sweet.

    Oh yeah, and winter hasn't even officially started yet
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    If anyone is going to claim that north america is warming because of CO2 "global warming" because of the couple of warmer winters in the past decade, can just look out the window today to see that...wow, we've already had one giant winter storm..and guess what, i'm right in the middle of one right now! 30-40cm of snow! and its about -20 out right now. Sweet.

    Oh yeah, and winter hasn't even officially started yet
    No, no one is arguing that as you've stated it.

    I have argued something similar, on page two of this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Environment Canada made a forecast yesterday. Canada and most of North America to have coldest winter in 15 years. The global warming cultists claim this is just 'weather' and doesn't negate global warming. Amusing, however, how a drought or heat spell in some speck of the globe ( ie Greece or Britain) gets the cultists all frothing at the mouth and screaming in mass hysteria 'more evidence....panic...more evidence....help... ) An area over 300 times larger than Greece is evidence of 'weather' but when Greece gets hot it's 'global warming and the end is near'.

    The global warming cultists are akin to Creationists....cherry pick evidence 'to prove' their beliefs.
    Variations in temperature are weather.

    When there is a steady rise of "hottest (insert time interval) on record" compared to "coldest (insert time interval) in x years" (an important distinction) then a trend of an overall increase in temperature becomes apparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Re: Climate change - we've got 10 years 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by BSG CORP
    Climate change - we've got 10 years
    If you ever thought UN Development Reports were dull statistical tomes, full of little more than dry facts and figures, then the latest report - published this week on climate change - will very soon disabuse you.

    READ MORE
    Excellent. I like warmer weather. Maybe some colder claimes will grow more crops. So?
    Do you like entire ecosystems destroyed also? Or are you so short-sighted that you think the only effect of global warming is "warmer weather".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    e.g. during the medieval climatic optimum both the Maya and the Anassazi civilisations collapsed through drought

    or have people forgotten about the dustbowl conditions in the mid west in the 1930s ?

    also, think how many people rely on seasonal meltwater from mountain glaciers to grow crops + what would happen if those glaciers disappear ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    what about the vikings farming on greenland during the medieval warm period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    what about the vikings farming on greenland during the medieval warm period.
    Yes that happened.

    It's happening now, with farming expanding nearly every year.

    Not sure what your point is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rjc34
    what about the vikings farming on greenland during the medieval warm period.
    for any one area finding new opportunities, there's at least one that loses existing opportunities
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    For those that suggest planting trees will make a difference. I put it together for a gold forum. Please excuse the 'other' comments, some gold-seekers are a bit like that!

    http://www.finders.com.au/forum/view...b9d431d1c2570e

    My question is, so what if the pundits are right and there is 'global warming' happening? Why the uproar? Just what are we trying to achieve by reducing this or that? Surely not to save lives? If that were the case, we could save more lives per minute by bringing in proper banking controls over what aid we send to Africa, which is sucked up by their own leaders and stuffed into overseas banks accounts, still leaving their people to starve to death - by the hundreds of thousands each year.

    Or we could use a tiny fraction of the cash spent on 'cooling' our climate to take over a certain African country, which is currently killing around 45 000 of it's own people each month - many of them women and children.

    So why the panic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    So why the panic?
    Panic sells, Patches, panic sells...
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    So why the panic?
    Panic sells, Patches, panic sells...
    Reminds me of an essay I wrote years ago. In 2004 it goes as follows.

    Recommendations For Global Warming Skeptics, an armchair analysis

    Apparently, one of the instincts for survival of a social species like Homo sapiens is social group building. Consequently the function of that group is survival against any threat, ultimately improving the quality oflife. It appears that cause and effect are interchangeable. Ifthere is a threat, the group bonds will strengthen to counter it. If there is no threat, the group tends to loose coherence and this is undesirable, as it opposes to the social instinct. But this problem can be countered by finding a new threat or create one if required.

    Most often, threats emerge from the same species. This mechanism can be observed in primary schools already. Pestering individual children is more often the work of a group, the main culprits usually being those who desire the leadership of the gang, eager to show that they are well prepared for that job. The victim is the threat, the enemy that justifies the forming and reinforcing of the group. At adulthood the principle doesn't change, only the scale. The threats are now the Huns, the Barbarians, the Capitalists, the Commies, the Heathens, the other religion, etc. Threats can also be non-human: hurricanes, meteorite impact, flooding, etc, or even abstract: dragons, devils, global warming, etc. It may even be possible to capture this effect in a numerical expression (soon to be known as Andre's law of conservation of concern)

    Tr=Th + Tn + Ta=ln(N)/Cc

    Tr= total threat required
    Th =total human threat
    Tn = total natural threat
    Ta = total abstract threat
    N = number of individuals in the group Cc = civilization coefficient

    Studying past and present civilisations can be used to test this hypothesis. Assuming that Tn, Cc and N are constant, then the sum of Th and Ta should be constant as well. In other words, the safest, most unchallenged communities from human threats should have the most dangerous devils and dragons.

    Now, as the relatively safe modem western civilization suffered a severe loss ofTh with the demise of Communism, it sought compensation in increasing Ta. For identifying a new emerging Ta- threat we only need to synchronize possible candidates with the weakening of the Th threat. As the credibility of a possible devil and dragons threat has declined considerably, obviously Global Warming remained, to take over the threat role of communism in the early 1990ies. And we see that the timing is right. And with every former communists country, joining western organizations, the threat of global warming increases proportionally. Before that period, it did lead a meager existence, fighting the new ice age that was coming. Now, the impact of global warming on society equals the burden of the previous communist threat.

    As observed on the schoolyards, those who have the highest desire for the acceptance, approval, love, and ultimately the leadership of the group, show this by brave, heroic behavior against the
    threat. If the threat is human, the ultimate consequences of seeking dominance of the group this way, can be disastrous, and initial enemy image building, "Capitalists", "Commies", etc, accumulates into revolutions, wars and massacres. How about non-human threats and abstract threats? How about the global warming?

    Obviously, those who seek a higher social status can do so by showing the determination to fight any threat and become heroes. But it doesn't work if the society is either not aware or not convinced of that particular threat. So the "enemy image" must be build first and an insistent information campaign is required with a deluge of alleged evidence of Global warming. This is easy since there are many prospective heroes well capable of making a case. One cannot help comparing this tendency with similar information campaigns against threats in the past (a.k.a. propaganda), the human enemy image building, which ultimately ended in tragedies. But this actually explains also, how social group mechanisms ultimately lead to such tragedies. Well, in the case of global warming, an imaginary abstract threat (Ta) cannot suffer; only their fierce, heroic fighters and their followers could, albeit a lot less compared to the tragedies resulting from creating a human threat image (Th).

    So what is the lesson of this little observation exercise from an armchair for the skeptics of global warming? Being right and being wise is not the same. Perhaps its better to leave the Global Warming alarmists alone and not to expose the non-existence of the threat. The ultimate outcome of falsifying Global Warming could be opposite the desired result.

    First of all, as already experienced, deniers of threats must be traitors per definition, who will be banished from the group, marked with tar and feathers. Secondly, social groups required threats as a constant factor. It’s a human requirement; we do not like to lose our dearly beloved enemies. An abstract threat image like global warming is a lot less dangerous than a creating or intensifying another human enemy image. So when the alleged global warming threat is taken away, the focus may shift again to assumed human threats, consequently risking the development of more conflict tragedies. The global warming dragon devil may even replace the enemy image that other civilizations have about the west and thus helping to prevent future human tragedies. This outweighs the importance of the truth

    Global warmers are to be commended for their selection of a harmless enemy. Hurray for global warming.
    That was of course, before I realized that the political course of action following from this, is heading for disaster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Brings to mind the old proverb ''A common enemy unites all''.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    Brings to mind the old proverb ''A common enemy unites all''.

    Barry
    Exactly, in the variation, if you want friends, create an enemy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All:

    See my post today on 'Another Climate Conference'.

    GW is real!

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Climate change is real Cosmos - that's all science can say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    no-one contests that climate change is real - the real questions are : to what extent is it man-made, can we do something about it and will it eventually do us in ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    MarnixR evidence on this forum reveals that trees were growing at much higher altitudes than today. It was wamer and humans seemed to do OK during that period. The question really is, 'how much adjustment are we going to have to go through to adapt'.

    And will we run out of seafood (thus food for a significant number of humans) through human depletion first - without any help from climate change?

    I have a question that relates to the Great Barrier Reef. I dived on it during the late 60s, early seventies and agree with Val Taylor that around 50% has already gone - not that anyone seeing it for the first time would know. It's still staggering. I wonder though if the loss really has anything to do with climate change. Just what is the reaction between Co2, seawater and increasing phosphates/nitrogen on structures such as the reef?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Patches1
    MarnixR evidence on this forum reveals that trees were growing at much higher altitudes than today. It was wamer and humans seemed to do OK during that period. The question really is, 'how much adjustment are we going to have to go through to adapt'.

    And will we run out of seafood (thus food for a significant number of humans) through human depletion first - without any help from climate change?

    I have a question that relates to the Great Barrier Reef. I dived on it during the late 60s, early seventies and agree with Val Taylor that around 50% has already gone - not that anyone seeing it for the first time would know. It's still staggering. I wonder though if the loss really has anything to do with climate change. Just what is the reaction between Co2, seawater and increasing phosphates/nitrogen on structures such as the reef?
    It is difficult for me to believe that a slight change in the temperature of ocean water would be the cause of this erosion.

    I would point the finger at all the pollution that has contaminated the oceans and seas such as herbecides, pesticides, fungacides and preservatives of all kinds.

    The Beluga whales in Lake Ontario have been shown to have 'cancer' lesions on their skins.
    This gives you an idea of the pollution in the Great Lakes and would also be the causes of polluting the oceans from all other sources.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    It is difficult for me to believe that a slight change in the temperature of ocean water would be the cause of this erosion.
    what often happens to reefs is that above a certain temperature the photosynthesizing zooxanthellae leave their symbiosis with the coral-building animals, so that the latter now have to fend for themselves

    over time they may re-acquire other symbionts, but in the meantime their growth is far slower and they may become more prone to destruction from other agents that otherwise they might have overcome if still in symbiosis
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    It's all these meat eaters farting cows that are doing it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    There’s no doubt that a warmer sea will do that marnixR. However, because the damage commenced well before any surface temperature change, I’m wondering whether there’s a chemical reaction between Co2 and nitrogen runoff from farms, which drain into the region. Is it possible that the damage is exacerbated by the presence of excess nitrogen? So many questions….

    That’s true Selene and as developing nations increase their cash flow, they demand more and more meat, so there will be more farts. However, I think it’s Oz CSIRO who have developed a feeding pattern that is said to reduce these considerably. Yet, who has tested the grass animals feed on. What's the smell of freshly mown hay made of?

    And did Socrates commit suicide or was it State sanctioned murder?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Patches1
    There’s no doubt that a warmer sea will do that marnixR. However, because the damage commenced well before any surface temperature change, I’m wondering whether there’s a chemical reaction between Co2 and nitrogen runoff from farms, which drain into the region. Is it possible that the damage is exacerbated by the presence of excess nitrogen? So many questions….
    corals also need crystal-clear water, so yes, increased run-off would cloud the water + excess phosphorus or nitrogen could lead to algal blooms, and i'm sure this would affect corals
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •