Global warming
 

Inspired by ETS debates....

Re: Global warming
 

No question, humans have a negligible effect on the natural warming and cooling of the earth. I won't even call it global warming.

Re: Global warming
 

I am not a sceptic - but believe it's not just humans.

Interesting how we have gone to Climate change now and not Global Warming.

CO2 levels are going through the roof and very recently too. There is evidence to suggest I guess it is man-made. Apparently the CFC lobby back in the 80s etc really worked (don't ask me how it was measured).

If I'm not mistaken everyone mistakes, or equates these levels for global warming (temperature rise). I know greenhouse gases will cause warming, but warming may have happened anyway.

Re: Global warming
 

What's most worrying is many are using trendy opinion to conveniently let themselves off the hook. Meanwhile the global population ceaslessly runs out of control, we continue to burn ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels and the decimation of our forested areas proceeds. We're ****** :blink:

Re: Global warming
 

I've always wondered who gets to decide what the ideal average temperature for the planet should be and how they arrived at that conclusion. :blink:

Any IPCC representitives here, please let me know. :D

It's no secret the planet has been warmer in the past and flourished. Why is that a bad thing?

Re: Global warming
 

There is the "big unknown" factor. With an overpopulated and hotter planet the competition and demand for it's dwindling resources and limited land masses will increase. And so many knock on effects.

Halting population growth should be priority number one but strangely little attention is paid to that.

Re: Global warming
 

I agree entirely. There should be global population management program.

Re: Global warming
 

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

Ice cover

Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, at least 1.6 kilometres thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water.

If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres.

This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Warmer temperatures are expected to lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans.

During a recent decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year (Davis et al., Science 2005)

Re: Global warming
 

This is a popular myth. The terms "climate change" and "global warming" were both being used as early as the 1970s. In 1975, America's National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action.

Can't help you there, but I can offer this:
(Source).

Has it? When was this? Global warming is a bad thing today because our planet is vastly more populated and highly dependent on stable weather conditions. Just look at the damage caused by El Niño every year:
(Source).

Re: Global warming
 

Given the recent Climategate revelations (not heard of it? that's because the msm wants you not to hear about it - try googling it) I would say that the contribution of man to any change in climate - and what change in climate would that be???? is zip, nada, nothing - except for those stations which are now situated next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of bloody great tarmac car parks.

The stuff coming out of CRU is dynamite - pointing to a scam of the highest order. "Scientists" massaging the figures left right and centre to get to the outcome they want, destroying original data so no one can pick them up for it, making sure that "peer reviewed" meant reviewed by their own little select peer group. I am sure that many suspected this but voices like Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer have been howling in the wilderness until now. Even the warmanista George Moonbat (Monbiot) is accepting that these revelations are monster!

I am right behind the NO! to ETS group - taxing emissions which will have absolutely no impact on the temperature in the world at all.

OTOH, I do agree that the climate is changing - always has and always will. Australia always has been a land of droughts floods and fires and what we need to be doing, given the untenable population that we have already, is to be working on ways to ameliorate that situation the best way we can - not building more bloody school halls and letting dodgy brothers get rich off the tax payer dollar by installing batts in homes where people were too lazy to pay for their own.

Off hobby horse now - this Climategate thing has made me so damned angry!

Edited to say - Vash's diagram, courtesy of the New Scientist is one promulgated by the IPCC based on information gained from the CRU - where you "ignore the decline", use "tricks" to disappear data you dont want etc. What relationship it has to reality is dubious to say the least.

Re: Global warming
 

I agree.

The human race faces the equivalent of Pascal's wager. If you do not believe in global warming and do nothing then we have everything to loose. If you do believe in global warming and do something, we have everything to gain. It therefore makes logical sense to accept it even though the proof may not be to your liking.

Just because you deny something does not make it the case. The latest Climategate and media frenzy is a side show. If I were a skeptic, and I am, I might even suggest that there are a lot of interested parties in the science of it all and some very large financial stakes in discrediting the work done.

There are huge issues besides CO2 which must be addressed and are all interlinked. The world cannot carry on in the manner that we have been post industrialisation. We consume more grain than we use, we are at the end of peak oil, the next decade will see migration in massive numbers. The polar caps are disappearing, sea levels rising. Change is upon us whether we like it or not. As others have said population control should be the worlds priority. But thats not a nice thing for politicians to say.

Is CO2 emmissions the cause of global warming ? Who knows. But can anyone seriously suggest that they think that pumping the crap we do into the air as a global population is a good thing ? Reduce them anyway - we have nothing to loose.

I happen to think the Australian ETS is rubbish of the highest order. I also believe that industry has more influence in politics than many people would care to think is the case. We should instead have turned to nuclear power as a nation. The technology evolving in this field makes it just too attractive with the latest revolutionary Chinese nuclear designs making it safe.

But then, I'm not the Prime Minster having to go to Copenhagen as the star of the Commonwealth Unity on climate change and if I had not done something also been rather discredited as a hypocrite being one of the worst polluting nations and a non Koyoto signatory. The ETS passing is merely a ill thought out "look we did something" badge.

Re: Global warming
 

It was higher during the Jurassic. I would guess that there have been other times as well.

Re: Global warming
 

Wow, the level of ignorance shown in these poll results is incredible - looks like the deniers have done a good job in confusing people.

Just to set a few records straight:

• The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen dramatically since the industrial revolution and the beginning of the mass exploitation of fossil fuels. That's a fact - million years of ancient CO2 that was locked up, then dumped into our atmosphere over a century.
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so its totally wrong to suggest that the effect of that increase on global temperatures will be negligible. The straight 1+1=2 is a significant increase in temps, and fast. If you want to suggest otherwise, you need to provide the evidence why it won't have a major effect. All the evidence says CO2 and temp are correlated, every feedback mechanism people can think of has been included in the models - the picture painted is not pretty.
  
  The jury came back on this decades back. You want to overturn the verdict, you need some serious evidence and some good theories. They are missing from the denier case.
• Increases in temp this large and this fast are unprecedented and mean that natural systems won't have time to adapt. Some will die off, some will live (probably the weeds). You can add to that land use changes not being simple or quick.
• Climate change is a better term than global warming because of the chance that the thermohaline circulation turns off. It has before, in related circumstances, and it puts Europe in an ice age.
• Lots of other nasties fall out as well; acidification of the oceans from CO2 dissolving (measured today), methane hydrate release (seen today) increasing the greenhouse effect dramatically, likewise with permafrost melting (seen), glaciers sliding into the sea, water shortages in the subcontinent, etc. etc.
• The CRU stolen emails were a storm in a teacut. They don't show the data being fixed - they do show climate scientist wanting to strangle the deniers (and I can understand that). They have been widely misrepresented by deniers and shoddy journalists.
• Oh, and with the positive feedback instances known, its probably worse than the IPCC is saying. They're conservative.

Bringing this all back to the supposed point of the forum, Australia. Its already hitting rainfall in Aus (that's measured) and the models show increased temps up to 4C, easy. 2050 type timescales that will reduce the carrying capacity of the country significantly. Why am I still interested in being there? Because by that time I'll be dead and there are nearer term threats that make Aus better positioned.

None of which changes the longer term facts of the matter.

Re: Global warming
 

I agree that we have nothing to lose by reducing carbon emissions. We should do this anyway whether man-mad climate change is real or not.

However I'm not convinced by the nuclear argument. I don't think it reduces carbon emissions by as much as the proponents suggests and it produces yet more dangerous waste. I think people concentrate only on the theoretical process that goes on in the reactor and not the whole process. I did read a report the other day suggesting that nuclear power in the UK only reduced emissions by 4%. Now I can't vouch for these findings but the biggest carbon savings in the UK have come from the switch from coal to gas fired power stations. Prior to the deregulation of the power generation industry in the UK nuclear power accounted for about 25% of the UK's electricity generation but the country's carbon output per capita was greater than Australia's

As someone once said. 30 years of power and 100 years of clean up. How does that make economical sense?

Re: Global warming
 

I think you've equated scepticism that climate change is man-made with denying that climate change is happening. Your first point is to do with man-made change and the rest is to do with climate change in general whether it is man-made or not. Proving that climate change is happening is not the same as proving it is man-made.

Re: Global warming
 

Why do you call people who differ with you ignorant?:confused:

Especially with the recent news about the CRU at the University of East Anglia being caught distorting data with their computer analysis programs is it any wonder the number of skeptics is growing?

Re: Global warming
 

The alleged "Climategate" is a complete non-event, whipped up by lashings of hot bloviation from the usual suspects. It's already been debunked (see the article here).

Ian Plimer is a liar and a nutcase with no scientific credibility whatsoever. He also happens to be a director of three different mining companies, which I am sure has NOTHING to do with his position on climate change... ;)

And you have been an internationally accredited scientist for... how long, exactly? :)

AGW is a scientifically established fact. This does not stop morons like Plimer from spreading their wacky religion, but it does result in some amusing revelations when the denialists' own hired scientists expose the lie!
(Source).

So a bunch of industry representatives set up a lobby group and tried to hide the results when their own scientists told them that global warming is true. That's the real "Climategate" - not a handful of email snippets ripped out of context.

Re: Global warming
 

hahahaha

Oh no it has not been debunked. You may have convinced yourself it has been but the investigation is far from over.

Re: Global warming
 

Ah here we go, all in the pay of big oil no doubt.

What about the climate scientists who are in the pay of big Green and government who demand that they get the right answers so government can levy a tax on them.

I dont see much debunking, I do see some people running very scared though.

Re: Global warming
 

And no humans were around to cause it that time.

Is Climate Change happening ? Yes, no doubt about it.

Is Climate Change 100% Human caused ? No; it isn't only us, it is part nature.

Is Climate change 100% natural ? No; we are to blame for a portion.

What portion is Human caused ? No-one knows for sure.

Will taxing us at high rates reduce our portion of the cause ? That depends !

Are we prepared to cut down our electricity consumption, stop watching TV, turn off heaters and cooling, use the car less, walk more, use bikes, turn of our computers instead of sitting here talking nonsense and increasing greenhouse gasses all the time, etc ?

Is it the threat of extra tax that will make us do all that, or will we do it just to help ?

Re: Global warming
 

My answer would be in the middle of all that:

Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is somewhere between negligible and substantial.

Re: Global warming
 

From the results so far, these 4 are the real puzzle...
But then, only 14% seem to be really ignoring the facts, so at least 86% realise something is happening.

Re: Global warming
 

Part of the reason I use the term ignorance is because people are making statements like this.

Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events (google Siberian Traps), its not this time. We can calculate how much we've put into the atmosphere fairly easily (its fossil fuels burnt) and it dwarfs natural events (like volcanos).

Honestly, there is no real debate on this one. It got nailed down in its essentials decades back. We're only really talking about feedback mechanism now, and many of these make it worse, not better.

If you don't believe it, do some research yourself. But don't come out with junk science pushed by right wing americans - its really not at all credible.

Re: Global warming
 

Those blasted Eurasians dun it:

known principally for his "early anthropocene" hypothesis, the idea that Human-induced changes in greenhouse gases did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era, but date back to 8,000 years ago, triggered by intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors.
William Ruddiman

Re: Global warming
 

I think that calling people ignorant because they say things like "Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events" is over the top.

Uninformed, maybe, but ignorant ?

There are experts on both sides of this, each side publicly saying the other isn't credible, yet you call people without all the answers, and questioning what they hear, 'ignorant' ?

Most people appear to be aware of the problems, but do not know the actual % involved, which is to be expected.

The 10% that say that Global warming is caused by humans, without any natural effect, bearing in mind that it has also happened before humans, are the real worry. People who talk like that will obviously bring out others who will disagree with them.

Which group did you vote in ?

1. Global warming is caused by humans
2. Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial

Re: Global warming
 

I think climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being helped along by man's burning of fossil fuels and over farming. However I also believe that what was started off as a genuine scientific study of the global climate has been hijacked by governments and big business today to create a tax on people's conscience, hence the ETS trading which will do 9/10s of f&ck all to actually reduce emissions, and only cause polluting companies to pay more tax or relocate to countries where they don't have to pay. Hence Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown etc are only going to succeed in stuffing up their own economies in the long run. As it stands the ETS is a total waste of time unless China, the US, India and everyone else in the world agree to go in it together, which is just not going to happen.

Re: Global warming
 

Isn't it interesting that the climate change sceptics appear to be people with vested interests in making vast sums money from industries that emit lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

Surely this is just coincidental? ;)

Re: Global warming
 

er...big business much more often than not comes down on the "global warning does not exist" side of the argument

Re: Global warming
 

I'm going to quote another poster here:

Over 25 years, most developed (& developing) nation governments along with all environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club, all in one big conspiracy to alienate their voters.

What is "in it" for the governments exactly? Their voters dislike taxes and solutions for MMCC are likely to increase costs and taxes - why would a government of any flavor want to have to tell its electorate this bad news when it is clearly unpopular?

What is the motivation for all these disparate governments and NGOs to band together in a giant conspiracy like this for over a quarter of a century.

I can see why the energy companies and automotive sectors would want to rubbish MMCC - they have a clear interest in doing so just like the smoking and asbestos sectors before them, but what is in it for the other players? I can almost see something in it for the environmental NGOs as its their meat and potatoes, but I can see no sensible motivation for governments across many differing nations to be involved in this huge cover-up (or is it swindle?).

Thanks to Cape Blue

Re: Global warming
 

'Ignorance', rather than 'ignorant', and in the meaning of that word that signifies "lack of knowledge of the facts".

Honestly, there aren't really any experts on the other side of the debate, it really has been done and dusted for decades. Every so often someone like a electrical engineer will pipe up and get reported in the press, but its background noise. The effort today is into quantifying how bad it will be, and why it appears to be happening as fast as the worst possible case. Nobody seriously questions IF its happening anymore - at least nobody who knows about it. It would be like trying trying to claim that sunshine doesn't make you hot.

What we are seeing IS due to humans, the natural stuff is very minor in comparison and would be happening much, much slower. The worry is people have got so confused by the lies that are being spread that they don't realise this. This has been an active disinformation campaign akin to cigarettes and cancer.

As for what I voted, well isn't that obvious? The only right answer of course. :thumbsup:

Re: Global warming
 

the other thing that amuses me about this whole "climategate" festival of dim-wittedness is the suggestion that the global HQ for the biggest, most spectacular, most far-reaching fraud/conspiracy ever perpetrated by mankind is in .....Norwich.

Re: Global warming
 

I think you'll find an awful lot of companies have a vested interest in making money out of the climate change agenda, that's why I said a good well meaning idea appears to have been hijacked. Climate change will be a multi billian dollar industry.

Re: Global warming
 

I'll agree with the confused bit.

I'll assume you voted "Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial".

The next question is..... Will a tax fix the problem ? As that is the main thing being done about it, as far as everyone sees...

Re: Global warming
 

Let's face it, it's very convenient for us in the West with our lives of excess to dismiss our impact on the planet. We need to get past this selfishness for the sake of our children and their children.

Re: Global warming
 

Apparently the unit in Norwich are quite influential in the field, despite your dismissal of them. If you have hours to kill, or terminal insomnia, these are the emails in question.


http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Re: Global warming
 

Some interesting reading about scientific honesty, peer-review process... ClimateGate part 1: Background

Re: Global warming
 

Interesting resort to name calling again - have you not read even any of the emails? The CRU is one of the leading departments in the world and if you check the emails you will see the links with other international departments to make this a very closed shop indeed. I dont pretend to understand the code but that has well qualified people scratching their heads as well - a real GIGO from all accounts.

This group - international as it is - are guilty of fraud, pure and simple. Now that the fraud is out in the open, scientists who have been too scared to voice a differing opinion in the past are beginning to be more open.

I am not, for the most part, a conspiracy theorist but for this - yes I am, it would be really interesting to follow the money - Al Gore isnt doing this for love you know. And scientists whose livelihood relies on them saying the "right thing" are definitely not going to rock the boat.

Sadly this has become a religion - the ultimate goal of which is world government and whilst some may think that is not a bad idea I have absolutely no wish to be governed by anything even remotely resembling the UN (Suppose you have checked the Copenahagen agreement that our venerable PM proposes to sign all in the name of saving the planet - world government and socialism by stealth).

Re: Global warming
 

This all feels very religious.

Re: Global warming
 

I've often said this in the past. The problem with this debate is that, irrespective of the science, the 'believers' have taken the moral high ground, and are quick to shoot down any form of debate or argument, in much the same way as religious people do, making the 'non-believers' out to be something akin to holocaust deniers.

The causes of climate change aren't something that can be easily supported or debunked like Holocaust denial - Lots of painfully close examination is needed, which must be transparent and openly critical of itself. The models used must be qualified and checked to make sure that they are making accurate predictions.

The recent revelations at the CRU demonstrate anything but transparency and good scientific technique.

At the moment, I see enough holes in both sides arguments, so I remain a steadfast Climate Change agnostic - awaiting something that will sway me in one direction or the other.


S

Re: Global warming
 

Some good points raised. I don't believe in man made GW but what do I know? My main issues with this 'debate' are:
The advocates of man made GW are being listened to by governments and therefore their agendas are becoming policy.
The scientists saying GW is not man made are not being listened to - although this may be changing.
Many respectable scientists are saying MMGW is real, but equally many others are saying that it is not.
If a scientist debunks the MMGW theory, he is immediately denounced as being in the pay of big business/big polluters.
Nobody seems to question the agendas of the scientists talking up MMGW despite the fact that much (note 'much', not all) of academia has a left-wing, anti-capitalist, anti-west viewpoint - and some have a very hard-left agenda.

Thankfully some politicians and policy makers are waking up and starting to question the MMGW religion. The liberal party is doing the right thing by opposing the ETS - it could seriously harm our economy for no benefit.