This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climategate

What is your evidence for this proposition.

This sounds more like horse**** or religious prediction than science to me.

gg

You live in Townsville where James Cook University has done studies into this very thing. Wake up!
 
The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.
If correct then that is the most scientifically relevant and useful comment I've heard from anyone, anywhere in this entire debate.

Taking that as correct, and looking at charts of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it does however suggest that the issue has been totally misrepresented to the general public. The real threat would seem to be acidification of the oceans, not a rise in temperature of the atmosphere, since atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at a roughly linear pace despite a parabolic rise in emissions.

"Ocean change" would be a better term than "climate change".
 
Some proof:

Now to that alarming research on marine life in the southern ocean which shows that the tipping point where animals will struggle to survive will come sooner than scientists previously thought.

Researchers at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales are warning that acidity in the Southern Ocean will reach destructive levels where it will dissolve the shells of marine organisms by 2030.

As Jane Cowan reports that is at least twenty years earlier than scientists had previously predicted

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tighter-timeline-for-ocean-organisms/
 
I agree the ETS is flawed but we have to act!
Knobby, usually your posts are really sensible, but I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
Are you suggesting that although the ETS is badly flawed, we should still be implementing it? If so, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Why not start of with whatever action being taken being right and in line with the rest of the world?
 
We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.
I propose there is an annual world Hold Your Breath Day. Every man, woman and child (pets if able) shall hold their breath for 10 seconds to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It could be incorporated into the Earth Hour held on the last Saturday of March although I don't recommend a full hour without breathing.
 

LOL. You mean something to prevent this wysi.
 

Attachments

  • global_warming.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 122

Sorry, was unclear.
The ETS is flawed. We should be able to come up with a better scheme.
Secondly, I mean we as the world should act.
I think Rudd but think he lost his way on this because he remembers being cheered when he at the last climate change meeting and now at Copenhagen he has nothing to show anyone that he has achieved.
 
In an ironic twist we have been emptying inland basins of water with no better example than the Aral Sea.

While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).

Elsewhere though there is more potential.

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

Interesting, isn't there also a lake in Russia that's emptying?
 

Lol, I bags the excavator job. But seriously, the Bradfield Scheme is a typical greedy, hair-brained, short-sighted, city slicker idea and thankfully someone pulled him up before he attempted world conquest. Leave nature be.
 
If you look very carefully, I didn't call you a moron. That is against the ASF code of conduct. I said anyone who uses the argument from now on qualifies as one.

Please don't call people morons.

What does strike me is how alarmists are unable or unwilling to make these subtle differentiations and consequently arrive at inappropriate conclusions... you know, stuff like not being able to find genuine warming in the data and cherrypicking data, accepting data with a ludicrous amount of (obvious) artefact, and even hiding inconvenient truths to come to and expedient conclusion anyway.

As for not considering yourself an alarmist... what would you call me if I suggested pre-emptively nuking China "just in case" they decide to invade us some time in the next century or two?
 

Ahem...

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

 
Ocean Acidification and Corals

Edit to add>> Here is a comment from the above blog which is spot on and furthers my consistent point that co2 is a red herring... meanwhile, there are more important things being ignored:

Make no mistake. Corral(sic) reefs are in trouble. Largely from pesticide and fertilizer runoff as well as sewage sludge. CO2 is the least of their problems.
 
I feel it is about time we all start to live our lives as described by some religous doctine. If we change our lifestyles and god exists (<0.0000001%) we save ourselves from eternal damnation, and live like gods for eternity. Else we wasted a few sundays in church......................
 
After listening to James Hensen, the NASA climatologist, on Lateline, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is global warming and that man is responsible for it.

He holds the opinion that an ETS is useless to prevent GW and that the only solution is a direct tax on fossil fuels. He likens the ETS to the indulgences granted by the Catholic Church (in the middle ages?) that effectively allowed sinners to go on sinning, but could buy salvation if they had enough money to do so, by buying indulgences from the Church. That kept the Bishops happy as they got the income and the sinners happy as they could go on sinning (if they could afford it). The ETS is the same. It allows the major polluters to continue polluting by buying offsets, but it doesn't stop them polluting. Governments claw in the money from the cost of the offsets.

The topic of this thread is Climategate. All we know is that a few scientists have been over enthusiastic in their endeavours to prove global warming is man made. But why does that negate the 99% of the rest of the science that also seems to prove the same thing (and before anyone asks me to show the proof, I cannot, I am not an expert and simply have to make my judgement on what seems to be the most persuasive argument).

To be honest, what influenced me enormously at arriving at the conclusion that what most scientists are saying is right, is that Fox News is saying the opposite and promoting the argument that the leaked emails are proof that the whole of the science is fabricated. Being on the same side of the argument as them is anathema to me and I started to question the facts of the doubters and they held less water than the pro man made climate change argument.

I respect the opinions of everyone (well most) on ASF, but what I find interesting is that those who are against the science that seems to prove that man is responsible for GW and are latching on to whatever flimsy arguments that the doubters may offer, are also those who, like me, would ridicule the arguments put forward by the God believers on this forum who reject evolution and the rest of the science that explains the universe without the need for some omnipotent deity being involved.

Why do we hold science in such esteem when it comes to the topic of religion, but doubt it so much when it comes to the major cause of climate change. If we are honest with ourselves, few of us understand the science underpinning either area and chose to go with whatever aligns with our prejudices.
 
Eh?

There must be AGW because Fox says there isn't?

That's not very logical.

Fox are undoubtedly outright denialists (and a pack of numpties to be frank), but they serve as a diametrically opposed counterpoint to the hystrionics of the AGW lobby.

I also must take issue with your statement that 99% of the rest of science proves the same thing. It absolutely does not... well only in the Goreists fantasies and in the now hysterical propaganda.

In the real world, pro AGW science is in real trouble... at least the Goreist/IPCC version of it is.
 
BTW, another simmering controversy of climategate proportions is the lifestyles and "carbon footprints" of Copenhagen delegates.

What a colossal hypocrisy!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

 
If I hear ONE MORE TIME the media broadcasting that friggin' **SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!** by that kiddy starring in the global Warming Horror Movie Advertisement (ostensibly created to SHOCK and AWE the participants of this gobfest - and the Rest Of The Known World to boot) - I'll go mental :silly:

Talk about gratuitous scare tactics.....

:angry:
 
....and just how many follow-up **Super Summits** do you think the World's Polly Waffles will be tempted to organise after being **wowed** by this stunning event?

Next stop Vanuatu?

Siberia?

Alice Springs?

Boggled....
How about Hawkes Bay, I'll invest in a fleet of limos.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...