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
You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because they don't want to tell you.
Who doesn't?
Why so much emphasis on it getting hotter? Because there is little evidence of cooling?

In all continents I have read of evidence of tempratures increasing. Europe, The America's, Australia, Asia and Africa. Deserts getting bigger, drought, melting ice etc. If the opposite can be seen, wouldn't scientists be jumping all over it?

IMO, It's been getting warmer for the last 10000 yrs or so. I've read the sea level has been alot higher. It is safe to say that the sea level would fluctuate from up there to down there.
To me, we're on an uptrend (trends do change). Human impact or not.

Why is it wrong to say GW is a reason to stop burning fossil fuels, polluting the planet???
 

A strange and sad event to be sure. But this shows the delusional leaps of logic that people are making.

* One weather event does not prove or disprove anything. As we know from NASA, the Antarctic getting colder. Hell, it snowed in Melbourne in November one year not too long ago... meant nothing.

* There may have been incidences of precisely the same thing in the last 10,000 years that humans haven't been on the continent to observe.

* It may never happen again, or at least infrequently enough to have no long term effect

Yet "they", in a most unscientific leap of faith, will have the penguins extinct in ten years in order to sensationalize the story.

That's intellectual dishonesty of the most disgraceful variety and I thought you as a teacher would have seen right through it. Very bad show.
 
Why is it wrong to say GW is a reason to stop burning fossil fuels, polluting the planet???
stop burning fossil fuels ==>> Good idea

GW ==>> wrong reason and a red herring

polluting the planet ==>> right reason

Wile everyone freaks about co2, they ignore all the other pollutants that are wrecking the place.

E.g. going back to penguins. Populations are in decline due to a bunch of other reasons nothing to do with climate and everything to do with pollution and habitat destruction. Yet these factors are ignored.
 
They've always been ignored. But GW opens up the opportunity for some real change. It has created more awareness of the surrounding environment for many. The GW debate has been a positive stimulus. I do not foresee any problems in pursuing the reduction of CO2 and other pollutants.
The "awareness" can only bring more positive change for the better of the environment.
 

Ouch Pat,

I don’t think I’ve ever been called a ‘self righteous lounge room asswhole’ before.

FWIW the case for GW/CC is a considerable portion of my tertiary studies and will result in a BSc (Sustainable Energy Management) .
My interest in geology many years ago morphed into a specific focus on astrobiology , not in small part due to the rise in awareness of CC.

I also made the point that I am not a sceptic.

My original post was directed to DJ in support of his feedback statements as alot of people are unaware (uninterested) in this phenomenon.

CO2 is regulated by the silicate-carbonate geochemical cycle and prior to the rise of life (pre-Cambrian) atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. It was actually the explosion of life (due to warming) that pulled it down to where we are today.
Very little carbon is actually carried in the atmosphere with a large portion banked in the ocean and the majority in rocks.
As atmospheric levels rise (get out of balance) warming exposes more rock/earth which leads to more weathering (and the production of carbonates) and also the propagation of plants which in turn capture more carbon which then reduces the atmospheric level.

My point regarding glaciers calving was bemoaning the sound byte driven misinformation that our society now unfortunately considers education.

Perhaps my mistake was taking the macro instead of the micro view.

As I’m sure you know many glaciers are also expanding around the world and yet the deep ice core drilling at Vostok station (Russia) shows clearly that we are in an unnaturally extended warm period (hence the rise of civilisation) and the ices historical record shows that a drop of 8 deg C is overdue when considering the previous four interglacial events (approx ever 100,000yrs).

Hence the earth has lost control of its CO2 balance all on its own , 4 times in the last 400,000 years.

Which coincidently displays as a parabolic rise in temperature each time (Very similar to 2020’s chart) followed by an extended period of ice building.

Our return of captured carbon to the atmosphere is obviously outside of the natural system however its not outside of natural cycles.

Considering the city of Seattle (USA) was under 1600m of ice only 15 thousand years ago, I simply find it incomprehensible that humans are so ego-centric that they forget the planet is a dynamic, extreme ‘wondrous machine’.
I imagine the mammoth hunters were damn glad to see the glaciers recede.

As to a sense of loss, after spending many years living remotely (in a swag) amidst our wonderful outback my sense of loss, although at first magnified (Alpine forests are now the the goldfields) was tempered by scales of time and the magnitude of the landscape.
What magnificent things our previous generations have already lost or destroyed.

I wonder what our continent and fauna would have looked like prior to being put to the torch by the indigenous tribes?

Glory in the present

I can’t agree more with your statement ‘there are more important reasons to change our way’s’- the impact of man on biodiversity is a far greater threat than any other imo.

That we should all do our best to lighten our load goes without saying.

Sorry 2020, you seem to have missed my point entirely.

If we compress the entire history of the planet into a 12 hour period then the recorded history of mankind would inhabit a colossal 1/10th of a second.

To fret over a 3 degree rise/fall in a couple of hundred years (and don’t get me started on quality of data) is a bit like taking your car to a mechanic with a blown diff and telling him to have a look at the headlights.

Anyway, me and my ignorance are off to the loungeroom

Cheers

J
 
Perhaps a realisation of "We don't know but lets try to do better anyway" would be good for all.

I agree with Waynel that we haven't been here long enough and 10,000 years could be a short time for a celestial change which may just be the cause of what we have labeled global warming.

Should Earth orbit the sun in a perfect circle each time? What if it is off by a few hundred thousand kms? Colder hotter perhaps.
 
jtb

Fantastic post. Thanks for your erudite and balanced view.

Pat,

I don't think it does.

E.g the British gu'mint. Shoves AGW down our throats at every opportunity and spends mot of its time dreaming up new environmental taxes.

Yet, it is building a new runway at Heathrow and adding a few lanes to the M25, both to facilitate additional carbon reliant travel. Eh???

Meanwhile, it is up to non-AGW focused folk to campaign against general pollution, litter and the preposterous level of supermarket packaging that clogs up our bins and landfill.

I think the AGW agenda detracts from real sustainability issues. It is anecdotal I realize, but it's what I observe
 
You see thats just the media taking things out of context.

How so? Do a google on 'penguin chicks dying+antarctica'
I got 9440 sites!

You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because they don't want to tell you.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-penguins-frozen-death-freak-rain-storms.html
 
Ouch Pat,

I don’t think I’ve ever been called a ‘self righteous lounge room asswhole’ before.
Sorry mate, you haven't yet. That was not directed at you (It wouldn't make sense for me to say that). Nor any other poster.
I suppose I've heard enough from people who don't care. To me GW is an opportunity for change. It's frustrating, very frustrating that some ignore the fact we should be living with the earth.
Yet to read your post, a few more beers and its bed time. Till tomorrow :bier:
 
It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud.

Cut it out 2020, fair warning.
so I post something put out by the UK met bureau
a graph in answer to your claims about rectal origins etc
and you claim it's fraud.


or are you saying you didn't post this in answer to "is it ok to jest about global warming?"..

Hey if you want to rephrase that, clarify what you really meant, we'll understand.

Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.

On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.
 

exactly - but the deniers will twist that to say that the penguins are freezing to death, so let's warm things up a bit

Wayne says that the polar bears aren't drowning - well, true - the two that made it to Iceland (oops)recently didn't (like, swam 300km of ocean to do so.

Trouble is that they can't catch seals in open water. It's not that they are drowning because they can't swim per se. That is a plain misrepresentation. (sure they tire after a while - see the video). It's that they like to catch seals at their breathe holes, and when the ice doesn't form , or only forms for a shorter winter than normal, then sure - they die.

Here's where the NRDC took Bush to court on the matter....

On Thin Ice: Polar Bears and Global Warming

NRDC's lawsuit forced the Bush administration to start facing facts about global warming.

Have a look at this starving female
Starving Polar Bear

PS a few more island hops, they'll be able to swim to Scotland

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...and-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html
 

Attachments

  • island hop.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 87
spooly , you say that "It should be the goal of the IPCC to find flaws in their model".
Sure they should constantly check and improve their model.

But hey, if their model is telling them something pretty alarming - then are you suggesting that , just because it's alarming, they should ignore it?

I 100% disagree with you if that is what you are saying - from scientific, or philosophical take on it - or just life experiences, but I won't go into detail. Sufficient to say that sometimes the messenger is right.
 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23879662-23109,00.html


wayneL said:
POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...and-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html

 
But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.
lol, asteism alert !

asteism - "Genteel irony; a polite and ingenious manner of deriding another"


 
2020, my post was a direct response to Wayne's comment about your repeated misrepresentation and simply pointed out that you were not the only one doing this.

Very straightforward, really.

No subtle messages implied.

Interesting new word, however.
 
jtb: thanks for your informed and interesting post. Really appreciated.
 

Julia
I enjoyed this post of yours...

However, As for my alleged repeated misrepresentations, examples please

I mean, Wayne says the graph is nonsense - I post the link to UK Met Bureau - he goes quiet .
Now
should I wait around for an apology? - or go for a run

(PS see ya)
 
So much emotion here!

Let's be realistic here fellows. I may be a skeptic of the whole GW b---****, but LET'S assume once that it is true and indeed CO2 is the SOLE REASON for destroying the human civilisation if we don't reduce it in the future.

What can we do?

Ask the Chinese and Indian to stop growing? They would probably point their guns at you to mind your own @%@$% business. Then what? Start a war against them to stop emitting more CO2? Don't be so naive here, the political world is far more complicated than you would think. Just because by supporting Australia to "take the first step", we would make a great example and other countries will soon follow. It ain't going to happen with the other big polluters. And definitely wouldn't happen to those who are in power and in control of the world.

Regardless, I would avoid taking evidences FROM THE MEDIA as the source for your argument. It's pointless because it is impossible for anyone to verify the truth or the true intention behind the message.

A news article on two polar bear accidentally made it across the ocean on ice and get shot by police is NOT an evidence that global warming is killing them. It's just a simple tragic story hyped up by the media.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...