Global Warming

[McLovin']

Originally Posted by calais

That is an all too convenient cop out. Which chooses to ignore science to the contrary. I fail to see how the argument for the affirmative has become so well accepted that anything to negative is now viewed as dissent.

You need to understand that I'm not making an argument either way.

The science you claim I'm ignoring is open to speculation and you could search out infinite essays, reports, and pie charts forecasting everything from warming to cooling, increased or decreased sea levels, imminent cataclysmic destruction or very slight alteration in weather patterns. So as I said before the exact effect of increased C02 is not what should be debated as no man can be certain as to what this will cause in the future.

It is an indisputable fact that our civilization has caused a massive increase in airborne C02 within the past 200 years. You cannot seriously argue that this is incorrect as the differences between pre and post industrial revolution are like night and day.

Now think logically about what this means.

If you increase the amount or percentage of a component in any compound you will change the characteristics of that compound, whether your talking about the atmosphere, sea water, concrete, jet fuel or a milkshake.

The atmosphere and the weather systems acting within it in turn affect every other natural system on earth, whether that be deep ocean currents, or the myriad of organisms that have evolved to live in it. 200 years is a blink of the eye in terms of geological time scale which means this increase in C02 is a dramatic change. And dramatic change is not good.

[Raptor]

Would this be a good time to mention that a warming globe may trigger the next ice age by slowing (or reversing) ocean currents that do more to moderate temperatures than most people realise.

Or have we covered that already or was that just a movie plot.....

[onfire]

Can we retitle this thread ' climate change '...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

So you only want to hold on to ideas of the past, or are you pointing out that scientists are all dimwits and we should only listen to people with no education.

Once upon a time, doctors thought there was medicinal benefit in people smoking, do you want to hang on to that idea too? Or you dont wont to believe anything modern medicine now tells you and completely disregard the medical advice given today based on how someone didnt get it completely right 50 years ago, why should I believe them today logic.

Once upon a time mankind was advancing in technology and society quite rapidly when a group of religious zealots gained power using unsubstantiated fear and uncertanty forced ordinary people to follow their oppressive doctrine.
Failure to submit or promotion of opposing ideas was greeted with accusations of witchcraft and heresy followed by violence and death.

For almost 1000 years western civilization lay floundering under increasing taxation, decline and dogma with the threat of eternal damnation for any who did not follow their "path to true enlightenment".

"Global warming" is an dogma seized by a failed politician and his band of sycophants who will not stand any inquiry. Opponents are branded beretics and vandals.

They proclaim that if we do not do as they say (and of course pay money) we will end up in an ICE AGE whereas in fact I suspect they wish to push us into another DARK AGE.......

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

So you only want to hold on to ideas of the past, or are you pointing out that scientists are all dimwits and we should only listen to people with no education.

Once upon a time, doctors thought there was medicinal benefit in people smoking, do you want to hang on to that idea too? Or you dont wont to believe anything modern medicine now tells you and completely disregard the medical advice given today based on how someone didnt get it completely right 50 years ago, why should I believe them today logic.

Did I say that? I was pointing out where the who global cooling..oh wait...global warming...oh wait climate change comes from.

Science isn't 100% and can be wrong. The wonderful scientists that talk about this theory use computer modelling to say that were all going to destroy the earth. They have made errors in their modelling and admitted that and funnily enough an alarmist model isn't as bad as it once was this is my issue.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for reducing emissions in gradual steps, I just don't believe ETS is the way to go.

Funny, that you didn't answer my question on whether we should adopt nuclear power and shut down our coal power industry.

[King Nothing]

Personally, I'm a fence sitter on whether emissions caused by humans have a significant impact on global warming, cooling, or climate change (take your pick).

There are people on both sides of this argument that have vested interests. Whether it's a geologist who sits on a mining board of directors, a CEO of a company with green techology, scientists wanting more funding/standing, or politicians using it to grab votes or tax.

So in that respect, I think it's worthless trying to discredit people, as the argument works both ways and really gets us nowhere. Instead, facts should be debated regardless of their source rather than thrown out because it doesn't conform to the green dogma.

torbirdie, I respect your passion for the subject but don't let that passion get in the way of listening to any evidence, regardless of the source. Discredit their claims based on fact, not what board of directors they sit on or what they say to journalists.

I also think that it would be a good thing to reduce emissions and to reduce our dependance on a non-renewable resource. I can also see the point of an ETS, I have worked on GHG-related projects in heavy industry and it can lead to implementation of technology that previously wasn't economically viable, and will reduce emissions and increase efficiency.

An ETS is a catalyst for change. Whether it is the right or best one though, I don't know. I do not think that forcing business offshore and impacting our own economy with no emissions improvements is a good idea, and that is what will happen unless china/india come on board.

Either way, good debate!

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Science isn't 100% and can be wrong. The wonderful scientists that talk about this theory use computer modelling to say that were all going to destroy the earth. .

Where did you get that from?

Of course the computer modelling is never going to be 100% correct, there are only degrees of certainty, but that is all we have, we dont have another earth handy to check it out on!. Unfortunately if we wait for the earth to heat up and climatic events to occur that will even shift the most stubborn skeptic, the change will be irreversible.
It is the skeptics that want to go against what all the good science says and gamble with our very existence by changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere, Im not going to be silent on the matter.

Have any of you actually researched what will happen when the tundra thaw rate increases, Ill tell you, runaway climate change .

Originally Posted by vztrt

They have made errors in their modelling and admitted that and funnily enough an alarmist model isn't as bad as it once was this is my issue.
.

Currently warming is taking place at a greater rate than earlier models predicted, one explanation is that the predictors didnt want to be dismissed as being alarmist, but now it is being held against them for not getting the forecast correct.

Originally Posted by vztrt

I just don't believe ETS is the way to go.
.

Neither do I

Originally Posted by vztrt

Funny, that you didn't answer my question on whether we should adopt nuclear power and shut down our coal power industry.

Nuclear power? no, shut down the coal power industry.....perhaps phase it out over the next 30 years, unless they convince people like me that carbon sequestration works.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

.

torbirdie, I respect your passion for the subject but don't let that passion get in the way of listening to any evidence, regardless of the source. Discredit their claims based on fact, not what board of directors they sit on or what they say to journalists.!

Perhaps you need to read up about Ian Pilmer, I have.
The mere fact that he wrote the book as an individual and not within scientific circles(but he wants credibility because he is a professor) meant he bypassed peer review and scrutiny and got himself straight into the media spotlight with some very dodgy stuff. Yes quite smart really, it doesnt matter that what he wrote will be proved to be nonsense, for the scientifically unaware(most of the planet), it will be held up as "another scientist" that tells them what they want to hear.

Better people than i have dissected his text(ones that normally do peer review on other scientists) and found numerous omissions and faults with it, which I have also looked at and are indeed dismayed at the extent of the errors. The journalist in question was armed with one such list of them and asked for some reply


I could go into all the science that is wrong in his book, but I dont think that is what most here want to know. They are more interested in all the conspiracy theories on who is going to get rich and it was more pertinent(on this forum) to point out the motive behind his fraud.

[anto]

are you a scientist

[anto]

http://community.detnews.com/apps/bl...hp?blogid=2041

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

LMAO, and these are the type of people making policies that affect everyone.

... and this Alarmism from the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/...asp?statID=557

If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters.

Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable.

We have the power to change course. But we must do it now.

As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I'm glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won't charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

what? only four months !! : we better hurry then, no time to think,...go,go,go !!

[Ohio XB]

ANTO - from here on in I think I will defer to ohioXb as he seems to be able to articulate it more clearly if you're willing to listen.

Wow, I am humbled. Thanks.


vztrt, Interesting information.

So you only want to hold on to ideas of the past, or are you pointing out that scientists are all dimwits and we should only listen to people with no education.

I don't think that is what was being said at all. I think the point is that there has been a consortium of scientists before that have made definitive statements about global climate change that proved out to be wrong. If they were right we would have already had the extremely shortened growing seasons and all the catastrophies stated in the article I pasted.

If the 1970's is too long ago to think that meterologists didn't know then what they know now, how often is your local 5-day forecast accurate? Here in my area I have been putting off outdoor events because of forecasts of rain and storms that have instead turned out to sunny days. These forecasts are based on powerful computer modeling of weather predictions. If they can't figure out what will happen 3 or 4 days from now, how can I have any confidence in the next year or two, or five?

We have a weather guy (Meteorologist) that has been doing weather in this area for over 30 years. He seemed to have the most accurate forecasts. Once he had to go by the computer models that the younger weather people go by his accuracy has diminished. He is also one of the few (if not only) forecasters that even shows you a map of isobars and explains what they will be doing.

Once upon a time, doctors thought there was medicinal benefit in people smoking, do you want to hang on to that idea too?

Now that's just silly. Those people are dead from smoking now, and the rest of us could tell from the cough (those with any sense) that it was not a good thing (and I never even smoked). Are you one of those that would have believed that statement by those doctors? If not, why wouldn't you have? Because it didn't make sense to you? Think about that.

onfire - Can we retitle this thread ' climate change '...

You're my hero. That was classic!

Have any of you actually researched what will happen when the tundra thaw rate increases, Ill tell you, runaway climate change .

Thankfully the Earth is in a cooling trend.

People like to repeat that the Earth is "warming", which suggests it is an ongoing event. This was true until 1998-99 when the temperature stopped climbing, and several years ago started falling again.

I am not linking to sources of info for this so that you will look them up to prove me wrong. PLEASE go to credible ones that are merely tracking things without an agenda (NOAA, etc.). There you will find this information.

Currently warming is taking place at a greater rate than earlier models predicted, one explanation is that the predictors didnt want to be dismissed as being alarmist, but now it is being held against them for not getting the forecast correct.

Even the Global Warming authorities have acknowledged the cooling trend and are explaining it with the term "Climate Change". Al Gore has said not to let this cooling trend lull you into a false sense of security because it will start to warm again. Yeah, natural fluctuations of things.

There was also a flaw found by some geologists in that the models did not account for ocean surface temperatures and currents in their preditions of years past. When factored in, changes in climate (predictions) were far less dramatic.






I rely on one rule of thumb; one cannot prove a lie.

This debate has been going on for some time and many of the results of GW have not come true. As time goes on even more will not come true. As that occurs I hope people will say "Heeeeyyyyyy........this stuff isn't happening."



So, who wants to buy some of my carbon credits???


Steve

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I don't think that is what was being said at all. I think the point is that there has been a consortium of scientists before that have made definitive statements about global climate change that proved out to be wrong. If they were right we would have already had the extremely shortened growing seasons and all the catastrophies stated in the article I pasted.

So anything put forward by scientists today is instantly dismissed because a "consortium of scientists" hadnt considered to the effect of the increasing CO2 levels overpowering/masking the conditions that would have seen the earth's temperature cooling....in 1975.
You carry on with "if they were right we ...blah, blah".
Well the science of how CO2 affects the planet's temp has been under discussion since that time and as yet no denialist or scientist has come up with anything else that stands up to scrutiny for why the planet is undergoing climate change.

Yes climate change, rather than global warming is the current lingo, why. Because your average person doesnt see anything significant in the ave temperature of the planet rising by a half degree or whatever. But these differences upset the delicate balance of climate systems, making once dry areas wet and vice versa, I suppose no one has noticed record floods and droughts in this country and others? see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/157254.stm

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

If the 1970's is too long ago to think that meterologists didn't know then what they know now, how often is your local 5-day forecast accurate?

That's the logic of the denialist, "until they get the five day forecast exactly right", then we wont have to accept anything about climate change
What you have failed to grasp is difference between weather and climate....give it some thought.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Have any of you actually researched what will happen when the tundra thaw rate increases, Ill tell you, runaway climate change .

This would be them.

[anto]

you carry on like you are some sort of scientific professor...are you ? , there are plenty of other credible theories so please stop saying there isnt, You just choose to dismiss them out of hand....I find that incredibly narrow minded. The fact is that there was a consensus about global cooling in the 70's yet that ddoesnt raise any concerns about the so called consensus today ? none..at all.?
I guess its second time lucky,...or is it third times a charm.

I asked you three times to comment on the nat geo article,...let me guess its just a coincidence right ?

you're a funny guy...really.

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

you carry on like you are some sort of scientific professor...are you ? , there are plenty of other credible theories so please stop saying there isnt, You just choose to dismiss them out of hand....I find that incredibly narrow minded. The fact is that there was a consensus about global cooling in the 70's yet that ddoesnt raise any concerns about the so called consensus today ? none..at all.?
I guess its second time lucky,...or is it third times a charm.

I asked you three times to comment on the nat geo article,...let me guess its just a coincidence right ?

you're a funny guy...really.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Just grab onto any idea that gets thrown up, typical denialist, you dont care whether its got credibility or not, I suppose it will waste time in getting on with things?
I need to comment? Did you bother to read the 2nd page of the article, ffs, increases in solar radiation have long been ruled out as being possible for the effects we see and guess what the guy you want to ride with this time tells us that the radiation has been decreasing since the 1990s.

Please provide some alternate credible theories, before you bother, actually research what real scientists have to say about them.....then you wont need to actually waste everyone's time.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by vztrt

This would be them.

why dont you type methane and tundra into your search engine next time.

[cob115]

GLOBLE WARMING IS A CREATION OF THE LEFT, : im not going to worry bout my carbon foot print any more,i figure there are going to b lots of suckers who will cut there carbon foot print heaps , any cuts they make will make up for me not cutting : )

[Ohio XB]

So anything put forward by scientists today is instantly dismissed because a "consortium of scientists" hadnt considered to the effect of the increasing CO2 levels overpowering/masking the conditions that would have seen the earth's temperature cooling....in 1975.

No.

You are taking the extremist view by saying if someone says something they apply it to ALL. That is not what I am saying. I will spell it out for you.

I am saying that there has been an exact same scenario in the past and it turned out to be inaccurate AND by using this example I am saying that scientists are not infalable. THAT IS ALL. I am saying that there is room for our own investigation to see if we agree with the theory of man-made global warming. In very few instances do I agree wholeheartily with something I know nothing about when an "authority" says so. Nobody is infalable, myself included. So that I do not get "taken" I will do my own research on the subject. If what the person has been saying is true and accurate I will find the evidence myself because reality cannot be "proven", it already "is."

I hope that clarifies what I am saying with reference to the Global Cooling issue of the 1970's. I am not saying to discount all scientists automatically because some scientists got something wrong once. That would be an extremist view........one that you brought up and chose to pin on me.

Well the science of how CO2 affects the planet's temp has been under discussion since that time and as yet no denialist or scientist has come up with anything else that stands up to scrutiny for why the planet is undergoing climate change.

I'll word this one carefully. When has the Earth's climate EVER stayed the same?

As for your link, Bangledesh has regularly flooded in our modern times. I suspect this is because Bangledesh lies on a huge FLOOD PLANE of which half is less than 8 meters above sea level. Add to that it lies between two huge rivers. Going back to 1970 at least Bangledesh has flooded, or the land now called Bangledesh.

That's the logic of the denialist, "until they get the five day forecast exactly right", then we wont have to accept anything about climate change
What you have failed to grasp is difference between weather and climate....give it some thought.

A typical comment from someone who takes comments to the extreme. I don't expect weather forecasts to be exactly right, and I will even go further to say "all the time." Forecasts are sometimes 50% accurate. On a good week they can be 70% accurate. With an average accuracy of 60 - 65% in forecasting what the weather will do over 5 days, what is this person's chance of getting it right predicting the next 10 - 20 years?


Ah, the difference between weather and climate. Yes, I am very familiar with this. I did very well in my Earth Science course which I elected to take in High School. That difference is very remedial to understand and I am very familiar with it. The global climate has been cooling for the last few year afte reaching a peak and holding in about 1998-99. This is what the Earth's climate is doing right now. To say it is "warming" is in direct contrast to what is happening.


If you are depending on that Nat geo article to prove your angle, do you then agree, based on this article, that the warming trend that the Earth was going through is NOT man made since Mars was going through the same thing at the same time? That is what the article is expressing. We are not causing warming on Mars.

Therefore, if Mars is warming the same as the Earth (or warmed) then would that not dictate that greater forces than man are at work here?



Steve

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

The fact is that there was a consensus about global cooling in the 70's yet that ddoesnt raise any concerns about the so called consensus today ?

Im guessing you werent around in the 70s or perhaps not old enough to have cared? No there wasnt a global consortium of scientists 1000s strong telling us about the cooling and it wasnt happening for very long either, . Scientists have been telling us and showing us the evidence for why CO2 heats up the atmosphere virtually since that time, how much longer do you want to wait.

You could just as easily argue that smoking hasnt be proven to cause cancer, it hasnt really, there is just a very strong statistical correlation between those that smoke and those that get cancer.


I dismiss them out of hand?, you find something on the net and you think you've discovered something no-one else has read? As i mentioned before, people much better qualified than myself have already looked at these ideas seriously and have pointed out why the ideas dont stack up.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I am saying that there has been an exact same scenario in the past and it turned out to be inaccurate AND by using this example I am saying that scientists are not infalable. THAT IS ALL. I am saying that there is room for our own investigation to see if we agree with the theory of man-made global warming.

All you need to say is that science is infallible, no one is going to argue with that.
But yourself, the intent is to deceive :there has not been an exact "same scenario" in the past, a world wide consortium of scientists scrutinised the world over have been telling us about CO2 and its effects for the last 30 years and data shows us a strong correlation between that and rising temp, when has that happened before?

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

As for your link, Bangledesh has regularly flooded in our modern times. I suspect this is because Bangledesh lies on a huge FLOOD PLANE of which half is less than 8 meters above sea level. Add to that it lies between two huge rivers. Going back to 1970 at least Bangledesh has flooded, or the land now called Bangledesh.

Are you deceiving yourself or just attempting to deceive others. Perhaps do some more research, Bangladesh has flooded before? really? and you want to tell us how many of the severe floods have been in the last twenty years and how the current flooding is the worst ever recorded?

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

A typical comment from someone who takes comments to the extreme. I don't expect weather forecasts to be exactly right, and I will even go further to say "all the time." Forecasts are sometimes 50% accurate. On a good week they can be 70% accurate. With an average accuracy of 60 - 65% in forecasting what the weather will do over 5 days, what is this person's chance of getting it right predicting the next 10 - 20 years?

You contradict yourself within the same paragraph, you feel you have been unfairly taken to task by saying you dont expect weather forcasts to be exactly right, then go on to say what is the chance of getting it right in the next 20 years? Do you understand the difference between a meteorologist and a climate scientist, and it would appear you still dont understand the difference between weather and climate.
Im sort of impressed that you did "earth sciences" at school, though some would say(not me) that it was just remedial science for nuff nuffs that werent smart enough to do regular physics or chemistry.

[bob^]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Nuclear power? no, shut down the coal power industry.....perhaps phase it out over the next 30 years, unless they convince people like me that carbon sequestration works.

So where do we get our power from?

Nuclear - The greenies won't let us. (The best option IMO)
Coal - The greenies hate that too. ( I can understand that one)
Wind - Nope, that will kill a bird.
Solar - Too expensive at this stage.

[McLovin']

If you look at the technological advancement that occurred during the lead up to the second world war until the height of the cold war, it really gives you an idea as to how ingenious and productive people can be when their ****'s are on the line.

Put enough serious government money and a sense of urgency into a project and alternative energy supplies are bound to be discovered and effectively implemented. At present the only motivation is personal profit.

As almost all energy present on earth ultimately comes from the sun, I would think that eventually solar technology would be potent enough to meet that need. Whether this will be in 15 yrs or 150 yrs is the problem.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Im guessing you werent around in the 70s or perhaps not old enough to have cared? No there wasnt a global consortium of scientists 1000s strong telling us about the cooling and it wasnt happening for very long either, . Scientists have been telling us and showing us the evidence for why CO2 heats up the atmosphere virtually since that time, how much longer do you want to wait.

You could just as easily argue that smoking hasnt be proven to cause cancer, it hasnt really, there is just a very strong statistical correlation between those that smoke and those that get cancer.


I dismiss them out of hand?, you find something on the net and you think you've discovered something no-one else has read? As i mentioned before, people much better qualified than myself have already looked at these ideas seriously and have pointed out why the ideas dont stack up.

You are certainly very passionate.

The problem is that the same scientists who linked warming with CO2 now are discovering the trend of rising CO2 occurs after the warming; that is to say that the CO2 is not causing the warming, and is a natural phenomonon after increased solar activity. Furthermore, whilst many will note that CO2 now comprises of 350 parts per million in the atmosphere, it has been 40000 parts per million (thanks to volcanic activity) before and life on earth thrived. Essentially, vegetation at this concentration went absolutely berserk, and in this day and age of increasing populace greater vegetation and an atmospherre more conducive to plant growth would be advantageous no? Think of the starving masses if their lands turned productive again.

What I am getting at here is that since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have remained largely the same (within 50ppm) except for when there has been significant volcanic activity (Mount St Helens), and nowhere near the peak of 40000ppm where life flourished. Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that we humans can affect the climate? Isn't it largely ignorant to ignore the climate trend that mirrors earths on Mars? Surely martians don't drive V8's.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm not saying you're right either. What I have put there for you is some facts that through proper consideration should lead to a consensus that the science is far from settled, and as Flappist correctly stated pages ago; "Do we really need a tax"? This is further compounded by the tax in question that will affect every Australian, and the fact that none of the revenue raised will be spent on the environment.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

All you need to say is that science is infallible, no one is going to argue with that.
But yourself, the intent is to deceive :there has not been an exact "same scenario" in the past, a world wide consortium of scientists scrutinised the world over have been telling us about CO2 and its effects for the last 30 years and data shows us a strong correlation between that and rising temp, when has that happened before?

I will presume you meant to say that science is not infallible.

I tire of having to explain to you what you cannot allow yourself to comprehend in my posts but rather wish to taint with a hidden agenda you think I have. This is my last response since you've demonstrated you cannot participate in conversation without any view other than "conspiracy" on everyone else's part. I don't expect you to agree with me, just take what I type at face value as my views on the topic. You haven't been able to do that though.

As for world wide consortium of scientists, the National Academy of Sciences is made up of over 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates of whom 200 have won Nobel Prizes. There were also meteoroligists and climatologists. Let's also remember the times, the mid-1970's. There was no internet, outside of the military, and basically global communications was not what it is now. News coverage had more coverage local to our country too. I don't know how old you were during the 1970's but I remember them well.

Here is an interesting sentence from the article I posted....

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

That was in regards to the global cooling. I've heard this recently too, before the temperature of the Earth started DROPPING again.

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Are you deceiving yourself or just attempting to deceive others. Perhaps do some more research, Bangladesh has flooded before? really? and you want to tell us how many of the severe floods have been in the last twenty years and how the current flooding is the worst ever recorded?

If you want to be amazed that a country on a flood plane.....well....floods.....then ok. I would think most people would understand this. Also, perhaps the past flooding won't have erroded anything that will cause even worse conditions? I would think that point would be self evident to a reasonable person as well. I think I learned about that kind of stuff in ninth grade Earth Science class (Mrs. Chadwick was a very good teacher)

Originally Posted by torbirdie

You contradict yourself within the same paragraph, you feel you have been unfairly taken to task by saying you dont expect weather forcasts to be exactly right, then go on to say what is the chance of getting it right in the next 20 years? Do you understand the difference between a meteorologist and a climate scientist, and it would appear you still dont understand the difference between weather and climate.
Im sort of impressed that you did "earth sciences" at school, though some would say(not me) that it was just remedial science for nuff nuffs that werent smart enough to do regular physics or chemistry.

Yes, once again, climatology and meteorology are simple enough to differentiate. Both are about atmpospheric conditions but on much different scales, to simplify. I don't contradict myself. The changes in the Earth's atmosphere, whichever scale you wish to reference, are still difficult to predict, as demonstrated regularly.

I hope you took classes that interested you in school rather than so that you can feel superior in saying you took a class that was different. I think we would find different interests between us and that may be the reason I took Earth Science instead. I was always interested in Geology, Oceanography, and Meteorology as a teenager. That was why I signed up for that class.

Should I take the same angle on this point that you did? That would be below me, but you can be confident in my inelligence in knowing that I had Applied Physics classes, as well as Metallurgy classes, ferrous and non-ferrous, during my Toolmaker Apprenticeship. I also had numerous math classes, Dafting, Jig and Fixture Design, CAD, CNC programing, and more.

Not smart enough for physics and chemistry? No, just not interested in them as much as Earth Science at the time. Should I think less of you because you are not into film making? No. Have less creative/aristic ventures than me? No. I don't need to compare myself against anyone to feel good about myself. I know what fun I have, what I have accomplished, what I am capable of, and I have the admiration and respect of my superiors in my employment. I have all this going for me, so I don't need to belittle someone by claiming to be more intelligent than them. There are those that are smarter than me, but I am proud of where I am at.


I can't believe I wasted that much more time on this. Good luck in your endeavors in life.


Steve

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Im sort of impressed that you did "earth sciences" at school, though some would say(not me) that it was just remedial science for nuff nuffs that werent smart enough to do regular physics or chemistry.

Hurling insults (however thinly veiled) do not make to appear smarter or more correct. It just makes you look arrogant and dismissive.

The sun is far and away the most influential factor in our solar system. Mars does not have any industry or life on it, so barring any volcanic activity (don't think there is anything significant if at all?) the only factor large enough to impact on its temperatures is the Sun.

Assuming the Sun is the cause of this warming (any other possibilites?), then it must be putting out more energy. Hence the Sun must also be warming the Earth.

How much though? And what impact does man-made CO2 have, if any? What is the percentage impact that each has? You cannot believe that if the Sun is warming Mars it isn't warming Earth, I certainly don't. I believe these are valid questions and should be answered before man-made climate change is defined.

Can you explain to me how this reasoning is wrong? (don't link me to some enviro blog, but back up with references if you wish)

For the record, while we are discussing academic qualifications, I have an honours degree in Chemical Engineering and have worked on CO2 reduction programs for industry. Does it qualify me any more to comment? I don't think so, so why should it matter for anyone else?

[ltd]

I think in my OP I mentioned that it shouldn't get political, I think I should add to that that we shouldn't get personal either.

This is a very big issue facing the world whether you are for or against;
For meaning climatology changing our lives, Against meaning changing our lives through punitive actions such as taxation. This is why we should discuss ideas and not resort to insulting others. As individuals we all have an equal right to voice an opinion regardless of qualifications, and through open debate we all stand to learn a thing or two.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Can you explain to me how this reasoning is wrong? (don't link me to some enviro blog, but back up with references if you wish)

I think it was covered on the second page of this, where someone introduced just the 1st page to the thread:,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
Im sure you could research the opposition to the idea that yourself, or do you need me to do it for you? The idea that increasing solar radiation is responsible for the 11 of the last 13 years being the highest temperatures on record has been discredited by reputable scientists, Im sure you will be able to find the info without me finding links for you

A writer to today's age says it nicely:

Sceptics say we shouldnt act until we are sure. He agrees, we shouldnt interfere with the earth's delicate climate balance until we are sure adding increasing amounts of CO2 will have no effect.

Im sure that's what you would like drug companies to do when they talk about introducing new pills to the market, rather than "only when we see people dropping dead we will revise our product"

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by bob^

Solar - Too expensive at this stage.

It wont be the most expensive if the cost of emitting CO2 is passed on.

All options are harder than digging up coal out of the ground and setting fire to it.
You might also consider geo thermal.

What if there are no options?, business as usual with coal and be damned with the planet?

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by ltd

You are certainly very passionate.

The problem is that the same scientists who linked warming with CO2 now are discovering the trend of rising CO2 occurs after the warming; that is to say that the CO2 is not causing the warming, and is a natural phenomonon after increased solar activity.

That was the thrust of the great global warming swindle doco, which I assume is where you got this info, perhaps do some research as to why the "swindle" was rejected on every level.

[McLovin']

Originally Posted by ltd

What I am getting at here is that since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have remained largely the same (within 50ppm) except for when there has been significant volcanic activity (Mount St Helens), and nowhere near the peak of 40000ppm where life flourished. Essentially, vegetation at this concentration went absolutely berserk, and in this day and age of increasing populace greater vegetation and an atmospherre more conducive to plant growth would be advantageous no? Think of the starving masses if their lands turned productive again.

That is a foolish assumption. We would thrive in Jurassic period conditions because vegetation did? You seriously believe that contemporary flora and fauna would survive in that atmosphere?

The starving masses you talk about would be far worse of than they are now. Even minor c02 increases cause toxic algae blooms in fresh water, increases in soil acidity, salt water acidity, and worse.

From NewScientist 16/05/2007 :

"Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss.

However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.
Limiting factors

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees).

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2 (see Climate change warning over food production).

In the oceans, increased CO2 is causing acidification of water. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species.
Levelling off

Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But higher plant growth will only lock away CO2 if there is an accumulation of organic matter.

Studies of past climate changes suggest the land and oceans start releasing more CO2 than they absorb as the planet warms. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century.

What's more, even if plant growth does rise overall, the direct and indirect effects of higher CO2 levels will be disastrous for biodiversity. Between 20 to 30% of plant and animal species face extinction by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report.

As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains."