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

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

  • There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

    Votes: 8 5.2%
  • There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

    Votes: 12 7.8%
  • Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

    Votes: 46 30.1%
  • There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

    Votes: 6 3.9%
  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%
  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%

  • Total voters
    153
oh it may be off topic in the strictest sense ferret, but its quite relevant in the sense that the AGW "evidence" is extremely contentious and its certainly a trait of greeny nutters to misrepresent the truth to push their own agenda.
 
oh it may be off topic in the strictest sense ferret, but its quite relevant in the sense that the AGW "evidence" is extremely contentious and its certainly a trait of greeny nutters to misrepresent the truth to push their own agenda.

Indeed... I specifically liked the following...


lol....
 


Have to agree with that sentiment, Ferret... prioritising the conversion of food staples to provide fuel for motor transport (rather than to feed the starving masses of the planet) smacks of moral ineptitude.

Back to school for you, Mr President...... PRE-school that is, son....


AJ
 
I cannot believe all the hysteria about G.W. being caused by Green House Gas Emissions.
The Sun is made of 90% hydrogen and has massive explosions on a daily basis.Explosions as big as 1million Hiroshima atom bombs. Surely this must explain the effect it would have on Earth; something that has been going on for millions of years. The Sun's rays radiate out in all different directions and if Earth is in the path of those rays it no doubt may effect our climate.
Does anyone know how Greenland got its name?
When Greenland was invaded by the Vikings some 1000years ago it was covered with lush green grazing land where cattle grazed and crops were grown.Hence it received the appropriate name.
Since that period, Greenland became covered with ice in a mini ICE AGE.
It is only in recent years Greenland has once again reverted back to what it was 1000 years ago; a lush green country where the Greenlanders are again grzing cattle and growing their own crops.
They are now a multi billion dollar economy and rubbing their their hands together.
There were no Green House Gas Emissions 1000 years ago.
Must make one think about all the hype that is going on at present.
It would appear Mr.Rudd may have been a bit impetuous in signing the Kyoto Protocol.I don't think he realised what it will cost the average working family that he soooo compassionate about.
Will be interesting to see the outcome!
 
Another worrying sign from our warming oceans

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080326/19/169kq.html

Fear not, numbercruncher! In a few thousand years, we should be heading into another Ice Age, if the Deuterium records are consistent (we are at or just past what would appear to be another "warm period" peak).... then again, are we heading into un-charted water where we can throw out all this old, hoary, scientific data?

Maybe in the interim few thousand years before a definite LONG TERM trend is apparent, we should ditch this generic *global warming* (GW) media tag for a new tag - *LOCAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY* or LCV!

The attached radiosonde readings graph is interesting though .... note the recent cooling trend of the outer atmosphere compared to the warming trend of the surface and lower atmosphere levels. Could that be a case of higher "greenhouse" gas levels reducing the transfer of surface heat out to space while increasing the amount of heat held nearer the surface?

Hmmmm.... watch this space .... in 10,000 years .....???

AJ
 

Attachments

  • Deuterium Ice Core from 740000 yrs ago.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 70
  • global radiosonde anomoly observations 1958-2005.gif
    6.9 KB · Views: 61
  • NASA Global Temp Anomalies 1880-2006.gif
    14 KB · Views: 66
  • NASA Hemispheric Temp Anomalies 1880-2006.gif
    16.4 KB · Views: 61
Seriously, noco, is it the phrasing of poor and ill though out arguments like these that gives the no camp a bad name at times.

The Sun is a main sequence star and at it's core it is a seething mass of nuclear fusion. The surface volatility we see is the released nuclear energy from the core convecting to the surface in a one million year journey. There are sunspot cycles that area a result of the extremely twisted and convoluted magnetic field of the Sun though these variation only amount to a less than 1% variation in brightness. There are some large eruptions and solar storms, though the Earth is protected from most of the energy from these by the magnetosphere.

The length of time for the energy to convect to the surface allows a homogenisation of any core irregularities and as a result the Sun is very stable at the moment and has been for a significant chunk of geological time. Any events at the core that will cause serious variations will be due to major events such as the helium core becoming large enough to enter into the next phase of element production. The Sun us expected to remain on the main sequence for the next 5 Billion years or so.If the Sun was wildly variable, conditions would not have remained constant enough for life to have got where it is.


um, there are ice cores from Greenland that date back 1000's of years. Also it is rumoured that the Green bit was a sales pitch to try and get people to settle in 'Green'land (the settlements of people that did go all died out too as it was not green), but it is also though to be a mistranslation of Gruntland (meaning ground-land).
It was never green.

 
sun flares affect the earth each day, depending on severity. large clusters of solar flares effect satelites, electronic stuff, cause skin cancers. the sun is not a harmless constant like derty suggests.

russian scientists have stated the earth is going into a cooling stage due to a low cycle of sun flares. i guess the GW deciples have to attack any science that denies the existance of their 'god'.
 
Ummmm, A bit fast and loose with the facts there matey.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
 

I never said it was harmless, just relatively constant. It is the variation of the Sun's brightness that will effect temperatures on Earth. Solar storms/flares are charged particles and not photons, they do not equate to brightness.

The next sunspot cycle has apparently commenced recently, so it looks like we are not entering into an extended solar minimum as has been touted.
 
The next sunspot cycle has apparently commenced recently, so it looks like we are not entering into an extended solar minimum as has been touted.

so you admit conflicting science. how did you choose the 'greater flares' science?
 
From the website Fate of the Greenland Vikings, good yarn too.

In time he granted her a small church 6.5 feet wide and 11.5 feet long, with room for 20 to 30 worshipers.

at least the church was warm. :
 


Here's an excerpt from that link you posted ferret

and you wonder why we think you blokes are carrying on like schizophrenics on this

Temperatures in Greenland have risen by two degrees over the past decade, and as a result, the ice cap is melting faster than previously
.
 
Here's an excerpt from that link you posted ferret

and you wonder why we think you blokes are carrying on like schizophrenics on this

.

2020 misses the point again... must be blinded by the melting snow.

2020 also misses the finer point of social interaction again. Saying that you think "us blokes" carry on like "schizophrenics" shows a terrible understanding of mental illness and does nothing to further your arguement. In fact, it reveals a very, very poor set of social skills & debating skills. Childish in the extreme...
 
Slightly off topic... but somehow relevant to debate about greenies and the quoting of studies....

"....Plastic bag threat to sea life 'exaggerated'...."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438890-2,00.html

this post sickens me ferret. Ignorance - sheer ignorance.

Clipperton Reef ... up near Mexico - pollution, plastic etc etc

Clipperton's Dirty Secret

check out the vocal at the 2m 30s mark

then try this (and it really should make you sick - assuming youhave any interest in what damage we are doing - or maybe have done a bit of scuba diving perhaps) ..

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story

 
Pity the poll is long closed, I just found my soapbox. "Other" with reasons - there is no reliable evidence of global warming, just climate change. Potential for long term variation and cause and effect is mostly theory as with all science. Show me a prediction of temperatures from '95 or so that is accurate today and I may change my tune, however root cause will still require debate. I tend not to read what those who must justify their own existence (climate modellers) write. I support the don't pollute line but until C02 is credibly a pollutant I breathe, drive, consume and fart (methane in this case). Stop population growth (Costello wrongly encouraged it) if you want to make a difference, the difference I make is I make informed decisions when time allows (you ony get so much time and decisions are imperative to the enjoyment of life).
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
continued...

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...