Global Warming is happening

[2011G6E]

The point is this: we know for a fact that the Earth has been "normally" much hotter or much colder at certain times that it is during this current unseasonably temperate interglacial period. That is fact, everyone agrees.

The foolishness starts when people seem to think that the Earth is "finished" with climate variation just because humans happen to find the weather pleasant at the moment. The world wasn't made just for us, we are just another animal, and the environment wasn't tailored to suit us...in fact it's the other way around, we evolved to suit the environment. The fact that the times they are a-changing isn't going to go away just because we might find it uncomfortable.

The climate will change in the future. It will become something different to what we see now, to one extreme or another. Literally nothing we do will change this or, more importantly, stop it from happening. We just have to change with it to suit.

Given that the Earth is four and a half billion years old, our 10,000 years of civilisation and 200 years of industrial development means less than nothing in the big scheme of things...

...and I think that fact scares some people witless...

[tweeked]

OK, I have never been a conspiracy theorist. Elvis is Dead, Harold Holt drowned but.......

For years the Conservationists struggled with their message, then they hit on the idea that the world would end as we know it if we didnt change our ways. Why do I believe this? My answer is very simple, and doesnt look at numbers or forecasts (these can be tampered with and presented in ways that can show anything)

My simple reason is that these scientists presenting all of the dire consequences have only presented negative impacts of global warming. Surely it goes both ways. Some areas will benefit greatly while others will suffer. Yet I have never once heard a positive effect of an increase in temperature. There must be some!

These people are supposed to be scientists, with no emotion given to the results, but they withhold data that does not support their hypothesis and present it in a way to push their agenda - CONSERVATIONISM

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The point is this: we know for a fact that the Earth has been "normally" much hotter or much colder at certain times that it is during this current unseasonably temperate interglacial period. That is fact, everyone agrees.

The foolishness starts when people seem to think that the Earth is "finished" with climate variation just because humans happen to find the weather pleasant at the moment. The world wasn't made just for us, we are just another animal, and the environment wasn't tailored to suit us...in fact it's the other way around, we evolved to suit the environment. The fact that the times they are a-changing isn't going to go away just because we might find it uncomfortable.

The climate will change in the future. It will become something different to what we see now, to one extreme or another. Literally nothing we do will change this or, more importantly, stop it from happening. We just have to change with it to suit.

Given that the Earth is four and a half billion years old, our 10,000 years of civilisation and 200 years of industrial development means less than nothing in the big scheme of things...

...and I think that fact scares some people witless...

Originally Posted by tweeked

OK, I have never been a conspiracy theorist. Elvis is Dead, Harold Holt drowned but.......

For years the Conservationists struggled with their message, then they hit on the idea that the world would end as we know it if we didnt change our ways. Why do I believe this? My answer is very simple, and doesnt look at numbers or forecasts (these can be tampered with and presented in ways that can show anything)

My simple reason is that these scientists presenting all of the dire consequences have only presented negative impacts of global warming. Surely it goes both ways. Some areas will benefit greatly while others will suffer. Yet I have never once heard a positive effect of an increase in temperature. There must be some!

These people are supposed to be scientists, with no emotion given to the results, but they withhold data that does not support their hypothesis and present it in a way to push their agenda - CONSERVATIONISM

Interesting, while you guys are trying to claim some sort of scientific backing for your opinions, you are also aware much of the discussion around anthropogenic climate change is actually emotional.

The science is not emotional, but people do discuss the science emotionally.

There is no doubt "Global Warming" is happening, the climate is constantly changing. The discussions now centres on how much if any is human activity involved and could we change the climate even if we wanted to?

I take your point 2011G6E that just because humans are capable of pondering existential issues; it does not make us special.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Perhaps this question should be

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does the tree care?"

[Maka]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The point is this: we know for a fact that the Earth has been "normally" much hotter or much colder at certain times that it is during this current unseasonably temperate interglacial period. That is fact, everyone agrees.

The foolishness starts when people seem to think that the Earth is "finished" with climate variation just because humans happen to find the weather pleasant at the moment. The world wasn't made just for us, we are just another animal, and the environment wasn't tailored to suit us...in fact it's the other way around, we evolved to suit the environment. The fact that the times they are a-changing isn't going to go away just because we might find it uncomfortable.

The climate will change in the future. It will become something different to what we see now, to one extreme or another. Literally nothing we do will change this or, more importantly, stop it from happening. We just have to change with it to suit.

Given that the Earth is four and a half billion years old, our 10,000 years of civilisation and 200 years of industrial development means less than nothing in the big scheme of things...
...and I think that fact scares some people witless...

In my opinion,

We've (the west) only had one industrial revolution so far so we are setting the precedent now for what affects the planet's health. With China & India about to embark on their " industrial revolutions" at full speed the true effects of man made climate change will come to the fore in the coming decades.

Does everyone agree thats something strange is going on now weather pattern wise? I reckon yes its plain to see...


What fence we sit on concerning this issue dont matter because in the end we still have to do something to stop it getting worse- if it keeps getting worse what are we supposed to do sit on our hands and let it get unbearable before we realise $*^# we have to do something NOW! Analagy- motor blew up what caused it? no oil? no water? It dont matter the motor still blew up!

Good thread guys keep up the good arguments either way!

cheers, Maka

[TC200six]

What, Global Warming is happening?

Don't worry, Julia's carbon tax will fix that

[Spinner77]

Does everyone agree thats something strange is going on now weather pattern wise? I reckon yes its plain to see...

With respect, that is precisely the problem. Is it really plain to see? Not many of us here have been observing the weather for 2,000 years. We have just seen the slimmest sliver of the weather pattern in our lifetimes.

Now here comes the key question:
How do you know that the weather pattern would look different in the absence of man-made CO2?

Another way to pose the question is:
How do you know that the weather pattern you see is just a result of natural variation, caused by chance?

We humans are bad at identifying things that happen just by chance. I'll give just one example. As homework, a teacher tells his class to flip a coin 100 times, and write down the results (head, head, tail etc.).

Knowing that a lot of the kids are bone-idle, he invites anyone so inclined to cheat - i.e. just write down the results they would expect, without going to the trouble of actually flipping the coin.

Next day, the teacher collects the results. After glancing at each one, he pronounces, with total accuracy, who cheated and who actually flipped the coin. How does he do it?

The fact is that almost everyone who cheated will have underestimated the number of times there are five, six or seven heads (or tails) in a row. Yet, if pure chance is operating, and you flip a coin, the number of such events will be surprising.

In a class of 50 students, roughly forty of them (81%) should have at least one occurrence of five consecutive heads; roughly 27 (55%) at least six consecutive heads; and roughly 16 (32%) at least seven consecutive heads (and similarly for consecutive tails).

That is the result of pure chance, but very few people will anticipate it. A lot of the time, chance, pure chance does not look like chance.

[Spinner77]

Sorry, left out an important word in the second question:

How do you know that the weather pattern you see is not just a result of natural variation, caused by chance?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Maka

Does everyone agree thats something strange is going on now weather pattern wise? I reckon yes its plain to see...

Nothing strange. How many Billion cameras where there in the world 50 years ago? Just about every mobile phone is a mobile movie studio compared to what we had back then.

You wouldn't even be aware 100 years ago if there was a typhoon/cyclone/hurricane in most of the world.

It is only strange as we are now bombarded in real time with amazing footage when these events happen.

Of course each one of these now has the parting comment " Global Warming "

It is freezing cold in Melbourne today, with snow on the Alps in summer, but not for a minute do I think it is due to any long term weather change. If it was a hot spell like last week, you know what is jammed down out throats.

[LG17]

It's hot today!
Is that because of Global Warming or just because it's summer?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by LG17

It's hot today!
Is that because of Global Warming or just because it's summer?

Ahh..

No the question should be... is it hotter on average then last yr?
Has the average temp over the past 100yrs (of collecting data) increased?
When can we say for sure its "natural" increase in temp or man made?

[kaniSS]

It's all about money.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by JC

I'm surprised that's from someone in Albury - I would have expected it to be from a Qld'r!

Having lived in NSW and QLD. IMO QLD doesn't need DST so I can vouch for him there.

[LG17]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ahh..

No the question should be... is it hotter on average then last yr?
Has the average temp over the past 100yrs (of collecting data) increased?
When can we say for sure its "natural" increase in temp or man made?

... and here I was thinking it was just a simple question.

[robbyj]

Global warming is a joke. The weather/temp is going to change to different extremes over millions of years. Sure, we may have the tiniest impact on that, but its still going to change no matter what.

The only way we are going to kill this planet is if we continue the monetary system. Our countries base success on wastage. The more we consume, the "better" our economy is doing.

[wookie836]

there is heaps of information to support the theory that globally temperatures are in a decline and were are headed into a cooling period, but unfortunately if its not posted all over the tv and papers or from the mouths of our glorious leaders, people tend to write it off as conspiracy theories or bs. people should really look into both sides of the stories themselves and come up to their own opinions. youd be surprised at how most people read a story on news.com.au, the paper or hear it on the telly and all of a sudden theyre experts on the opinion.
For every scientist that goes on records saying that they believe in global warming after reading a peer reviewed report, there are many who disagree. who listens to them though? theyre going against what is though to be common opinion.
Global warming is BS, climate change is real, but the worlds climate is not static, why back in biblical times the middle east was a lush food bowl, not an arid wasteland like it is now. back in ancient times the oceans were a lot lower but there was a lot more ice around the planet.
right now theres sfa ice, oceans have risen but whos to say that in the next few decades things arent going to cool down to change the climate as we know it?? even the Qu'uran states that when salt water is diluted by fresh water, which changes the tides, which affects the winds and starts off cooling everything.
right now in the eastern antarctic ice is forming more than it is melting in the western antarctic, but when the media focus on one thing and not the whole story, all you hear out of context is how the ice is melting in the antarctic at the rate of x football fields a day.
remember that old saying 'he who benefits from the crime most likely committed it'? that also applies to all the bs the media feed us as theyre owned by the same people who fund the govts. so if you have one political party member stating that global warming is a major threat and we must act, you can bet that recently there had been a media report trying to gain popular opinion on it.
most of the greens who believe in global warming are going to profit immensely from the carbon tax, we will never see the money, it will never be used to fund green energy and projects like that. why do we still rely on coal because its apparently cheaper or because the people who profit from it dont want to go out of business?

politics these days isnt about the people these days, its about the profits for the party supporters, people have to get a message across to get support, they dont care what message, but the ones that cause fear are the ones that get people voting in droves

[mik]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ahh..

No the question should be... is it hotter on average then last yr?
Has the average temp over the past 100yrs (of collecting data) increased?
When can we say for sure its "natural" increase in temp or man made?

Ahh or should the question be 20,000 or 100,000 years ago was the same cycle of weather patterns happening?

[Maka]

Just did a quick google - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html. Worth considering i hope.

cheers, Maka

[irish2]

There is no point talking about controlling carbon dioxide (read inert gas, not pollution) emissions without talking about population control.

[irish2]

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Vladimir Lenin.

"There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." - William James

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

Seems modern politicians also studied history.

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

There is no point talking about controlling carbon dioxide (read inert gas, not pollution) emissions without talking about population control.

I haven't weighed into this thread because I don't think there is much point. I doubt there would be many on AFF with the expertise to really understand what they are talking about. People just regurgitate what they have heard; it's like the blind leading the blind.

But I do want to address your post specifically. Carbon dioxide is not inert and it is certainly a pollutant. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with atmospheric water vapor to produce carbonic acid, which although a relatively weak acid, contributes to acid rain.

I do agree though that expanding populations pose a number of difficult issues (food security, energy consumption, population density, etc).

[cs123]

Originally Posted by karj

I do agree though that expanding populations pose a number of difficult issues (food security, energy consumption, population density, etc).

I think that is a major issue.

I'm no economist but how does the global market operate with a shrinking population.

[Madaya]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Perhaps this question should be

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does the tree care?"[/QUOTE]

I think 'Work Horse' has made a point. Millions of trees fell in the forest millenia ago. Today, we dig them back up and burn them.

We chop down millions more trees, many industries and societies burn them too. We don't apply enough effort back into putting the CO2 back it where came from, the ground, or tree trunks. It all goes back into the atmosphere that it came from. When the Earth was young, many billions of years ago, the sun itself was alot cooler than it is today, and greenhouse effect was essential to create an enviroment where water was a liquid at the Earth's surface, which I think we all agree, is essential to life as we know it.

Todays sun would have wreaked havoc on an early, CO2 rich Earth, making its surface to hot to support liquid water.

Just a few more ideas.

I am cocerned that we are heading into uncharted climate territory. A hot sun, and a CO2 rich atmosphere, has possibly never been seen before in the Earth's history. Sure the sun has its hot and cold spells, but is generally a reasonably constant factor over periods of thousands of years.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Maka

Does everyone agree thats something strange is going on now weather pattern wise? I reckon yes its plain to see...

I don't know how you can conclude that not having been around the last time the world went through a warming cycle.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by karj

I haven't weighed into this thread because I don't think there is much point. I doubt there would be many on AFF with the expertise to really understand what they are talking about. People just regurgitate what they have heard; it's like the blind leading the blind.

But I do want to address your post specifically. Carbon dioxide is not inert and it is certainly a pollutant. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with atmospheric water vapor to produce carbonic acid, which although a relatively weak acid, contributes to acid rain.

I do agree though that expanding populations pose a number of difficult issues (food security, energy consumption, population density, etc).

It also forms O3 or ozone. Don't see too many people saying they want less ozone around.

Also if it forms so much acid then how did forests survive when the CO2 levels were at 4000ppm when it is now only 352ppm.

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

It also forms O3 or ozone. Don't see too many people saying they want less ozone around.

Also if it forms so much acid then how did forests survive when the CO2 levels were at 4000ppm when it is now only 352ppm.

The "ozone layer" which is desirable, is found in the stratosphere and you will not find anyone saying we want more low level ozone. That is also a pollutant.

Edit: Actually, now that I think of it... how does carbon dioxide react to produce ozone?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Maka

Does everyone agree thats something strange is going on now weather pattern wise? I reckon yes its plain to see...

The interesting point in that sentence is this: Yes, we know about more cyclones and floods and droughts these days...because we know about them.
Go back fifty or a hundred years, much less even further back in time than that. These days, the world is connected instantly...someone stubs their toe in a village in the upper Congo, and we know about it two minutes later. However, fifty to a hundred years back, and entire nation could be ravaged by bush fires and floods and we might not hear about it for months or even a year later, if at all. We knowabout weather events as they happen, instantly and usually live on TV and the internet. Even in our own country, it was quite possible, even in living memory of older citizens for, say, a cyclone to hit the north of the country and no one in the south around Sydney or Melbourne would even know i had happened. Hell, if Darwin hadn't been there to report what happened in cyclone Tracey (and even then by delayed two-way radio broadcasts), no one would have known it happened at all until someone travelled the long and arduous trip north to actually see what had happened and then travel all the way back to find a place they could report it.

Now we can click a mouse and see up to the minute weather reports on the most remote areas of the world, in a way that was simply impossible fifty years ago, or even thirty years ago come to that.

We now get the impression that things are getting "worse" because things are reported much more widely.


Back in the seventies, they launched new types of satellites that could detect the Ozone layer in detail as never done before. They were shocked and horrified to discover the "ozone layer holes" over the south pole.
The question that was (quietly) asked by some at the time was this..."If we've never been able to see the ozone layer this way before, and then look and find a hole...how do we know it wasn't always there to some extent or another, and we're just now seeing it?"

As for climate, there is no "normal"...it's a dynamic, constantly changing system with a million variables, changing from year to year, affected by the sun and the Earths orbit and tilt and by volcanos and changes in solar radiation and other things in ways we do not understand and probably never will completely. It's foolish to look at it as it is today and draw conclusions from what has happened in the past. We can get a small idea of what might be going to happen, but when even the best supercomputers can't predict the weather more than maybe three days ahead with even passable accuracy, please don't tell us with pinpoint precision what the climate is going to be like in a century or twos time.

[Neale]

Has anyone thought that it may be the sun warming up the earth it is a constant variable with its solar flares we are moving around it at varying distances that we have no control over.

For example, When I burn the toast I dont blame the bread.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Neale

Has anyone thought that it may be the sun warming up the earth it is a constant variable with its solar flares we are moving around it at varying distances that we have no control over.

For example, When I burn the toast I dont blame the bread.

There is research recently conducted by NASA:


Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html


NASA’s media release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/

A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity — not changes in solar activity — are the primary force driving global warming.
[…]
Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a Watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 Watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 Watts per square meter).
"The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," Hansen said.

[Moby Vic]

Don't worry--electric cars will save us:
http://jalopnik.com/5965858/this-is-...-stops-working

[Spinner77]

Don't worry--electric cars will save us

Right on, Moby Vic.

Let's just shut up and listen to the music from Tim Flannery, Greg Combet and of course our very own Virgin Queen.

They know what's best.