Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[--B--]

regardless of people's opinion on global warming...

if a megacorporation like exxon stop funding groups whose sole purpose is to deny climate change, that pretty much signals the end of the road for the anti global warming brigade.

similarly if vote-buying politicians cease funding 'scientific organisations' whose sole purpose is to promote AGW, the AGW brigade will die as quickly as they appeared.

to suggest one side is completely honest and transparent while the other is not is sheer hypocrisy.

 

[Pat]

similarly if vote-buying politicians cease funding 'scientific organisations' whose sole purpose is to promote AGW, the AGW brigade will die as quickly as they appeared.

to suggest one side is completely honest and transparent while the other is not is sheer hypocrisy.

there are extents. You on Exxon's side?

I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)

 

[--B--]

there are extents. You on Exxon's side?

.
im on no side. im skeptical of the "science" used to justiffy AWG and the measures imposed on us for the misguided purpose of 'fixing' the climate.

I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)

sadly i think there are many scientists out there who's "science" is driven largely to increase their funding

 

[Doris]

Did you see Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night?

"A voyage into the Arctic to witness the vanishing of the vast sea ice... Can it be halted - or is it past tipping point?"


Dr Ted Scambos: less reflective ice -> warming oceans & permafrost -> release of CO2 & methane -> more GW

Dr Robie Macdonald: Arctic a sentinel & export of change -> global weather & ecosystems

The video of the whole show and extended interviews:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm

 

[2020hindsight]

Did you see Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night?

"A voyage into the Arctic to witness the vanishing of the vast sea ice... Can it be halted - or is it past tipping point?"


Dr Ted Scambos: less reflective ice -> warming oceans & permafrost -> release of CO2 & methane -> more GW

Dr Robie Macdonald: Arctic a sentinel & export of change -> global weather & ecosystems

The video of the whole show and extended interviews:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm

You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris. Bludy brilliant.

I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING" (the capitals were his)... well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list

Bore Corners

I heard today (can't find a link) - something about a Victorian Court has required that some seaside property must disclaim it is vulnerable to rising sealevel (I imagine something like floodprone land)

Gee that is gonna be a major laugh for the current owners innit?


Ahh found it , post #1072

North Sea ice IS smaller than it was in 1979, but not anywhere even remotely close to what the AGW alarmists would have people believe. I have demonstrated that... not that it isn't less, but that it's a lot less "less" than AGW hypocrites represent.

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

Wayne, do yourself a favour and watch Bore Corners.

 

[wayneL]

You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris. Bludy brilliant.

I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING" (the capitals were his)... well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list

Bore Corners

I heard today (can't find a link) - something about a Victorian Court has required that some seaside property must disclaim it is vulnerable to rising sealevel (I imagine something like floodprone land)

Gee that is gonna be a major laugh for the current owners innit?


Ahh found it , post #1072


Wayne, do yourself a favour and watch Bore Corners.

:sleeping:

I deal in facts, not sensationalist propaganda.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/

^^^Good site BTW

Back to my hedonism.

 

[2020hindsight]

:sleeping:

I deal in facts, not sensationalist propaganda.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/

^^^Good site BTW

Back to my hedonism.

lol
It happens to be an icebreaker,
people who know what they're talking about
you might learn somepin

 

[wayneL]

lol
It happens to be an icebreaker,
people who know what they're talking about
you might learn somepin

Yep, I'll learn how journalists portray what they want to portray.

 

[Smurf1976]

there are extents. You on Exxon's side?

I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)

The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.

You don't work for Holden and then come out saying that Ford cars are the best.

You don't work for Exxon and come out saying that climate change is about to wipe out life as we know it.

You don't work for the IPCC and say climate change isn't a serious and imminent threat.

There might be the odd scientist somewhere who is truly independent on the issue and doing worthwhile research. Trouble is, they'd likely be retired and aren't likely to say too much about whatever they find.

 

[Smurf1976]

I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING" (the capitals were his)... well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list

Don't panic, Polar Bear's doing fine. He's soundly sleeping in front of the fire right now, having had a nice meal of fish and a bikkie.

Polar Bear is my cat by the way. So named due to being mostly white with a thick coat and he eats mostly fish. ::

On a more practical note, Smurf's made an (admittedly small) effort to save energy. Nice new lights in the garage (used as a workshop) use about 320 watts in total, replacing the 1400 watts used by the previous inefficient halogen and incandescent lights. Much better quality lighting too.

 

[2020hindsight]

btw smurf, polar bear numbers are expected to be reduced to 1/3rd in 40 years.

But I'm pleased your cat is cozy.

Here's another related issue - loss of forest , loss of arible land, lack of rain, lack of food, (throw in the odd tribal war and refugee crisis ) - this is where it's heading folks - we're eating our cousins :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/05/2324304.htm?section=justin

Never mind, "eat drink and be merry"

PS I'm told that card carrying greenies are really celebrating the direction the world is heading in

 

[Doris]

RE: Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night

I was ignorant about permafrost until edified by Dr Romanovsky in this program. 100m thick in Alaska... much of it at minus one degree. (Wikipedia says it's 1.493 km thick in Siberia.) Of course they can't predict the volume of its melt but - add it to the ice melt and... ?! not to mention the methane and CO2 released into the atmosphere!

So easy and frightening to believe that the Arctic could be ice-free during summer by 2020 but definitely by 2030! It's bad enough seeing the amount of ice in the NW passage in summer now! Cruise ships go there!!

Some of the comments after 4corners are interesting:

Author Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 11:40:17pm
Subject >>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic

You are wrong. Greenland has almost certainly been contributing to sea level rise over the last few years at up to 0.5 mm/yr. If all the Greenland ice were to melt it would add over 7 m to sea level.

Don't know where the 11 cm comes from certainly not the IPCC report. But if all the small mid latitude glaciers were to melt they would add between 15 and 37 cm to sea level. There is a large range in this estimate because there are so many glaciers, mostly in inaccessible regions.

Author phoenix
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 11:43:19pm
Subject >>>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic

And presumably, if the experts maths are right, a 7m sea level rise equals approximately a 700m retreat of the shoreline. Puts most of Australia's coastline well under water - including the Sydney CBD. I guess they'll just move Circular Quay up to Town Hall and increase the fares.

Author Professor Amanda Lynch (Polar Climate Research)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 9:42:22pm
Subject >>Re: tipping point

Hi HK - the sea ice minimum in 2007 was caused by a combination of melt and winds. What is happening with the atmosphere is that the vortex is "spinning up" - that is, we are getting wind patterns that are redistributing the ice in unusual ways and enhancing the ice retreat. Son Nghiem is not the only person who has published on this - I have too, as has John Walsh, James Maslanik and many others.

The point you miss, though, is that the wind shifts are *also* associated with human-caused climate change.

So there is a double whammy.

Author Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 9:38:43pm
Subject >Re: if the arctic is is shrinking what of the antactic

Over the last 30 years, antarctic sea ice has been constant in extent within statistical variability. On the short term of a few years it varies up and down naturally. Around the Antarctic Peninsula however (the bit that sticks up to S. America) temperatures have been warming rapidly and sea ice has decreased.

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/MessageList.aspx?b=21&t=54&te=True

 

[wayneL]

Current Arctic sea ice vs 1 year ago.

Draw your own conclusions as the IPCC won't be talking about this:

 

[2020hindsight]

wayne
Watch that show (or maybe you already know), and you'll see how the fossil fuel companies - the likes of Russia etc - are salivating at the possibility that they'll be able to drill for oil and gas up there in the near future.
Leaves the Saudi oilfields for dead apparently.

 

[So_Cynical]

Did you see Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm

Just watched the replay tonight...amazing numbers.

25% of the northern hemisphere land mass is permafrost...The Co2
and Methane locked up in the permafrost is equal to that already in
the atmosphere...and its 2 degrees away from significant summer melting.

The arctic receives about the same amount of sunlight that the equator gets, its
just that it gets most of it in 1 hit, there is evidence that the polar ice has been
there for 60 million years...ice reflects sunlight and water don't, melting sea ice is
like a runaway train.

This is serious....the Atlantic conveyor is dependent on that cold water, if the
conveyor stops western/northern Europe freezes....at least in winter, the summers
will be nice though.

Current Arctic sea ice vs 1 year ago.

Draw your own conclusions as the IPCC won't be talking about this:

If u watched the program u would know that that ice (this northern winters ice) is
1 year old sea ice and not proper old ice like there used to be there.

 

[2020hindsight]

If u watched the program u would know that that ice (this northern winters ice) is
1 year old sea ice and not proper old ice like there used to be there.

... "rotting ice" as the ice-spotting lady in the chopper called it (who gives forward-scouting-intelligence to the icebreaker captain)

I think they also made reference to the words "scientific trend"

 

[Pat]

The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.

You don't work for Holden and then come out saying that Ford cars are the best.

You don't work for Exxon and come out saying that climate change is about to wipe out life as we know it.

You don't work for the IPCC and say climate change isn't a serious and imminent threat.

There might be the odd scientist somewhere who is truly independent on the issue and doing worthwhile research. Trouble is, they'd likely be retired and aren't likely to say too much about whatever they find.

I can't think of a company would profit from advertising GW? (except the advertising companies )

You would think the crazy scientists who live in Greenland/Antartica, would search only for the truth. To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie?

What 'bad' has come from this GW debate? The push to change?

 

[wayneL]

You would think the crazy scientists who live in Greenland/Antartica, would search only for the truth. To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie?

Absolutely.

There are large sums involved here and scientists are humans and self-interested. Anyone that has been around any sort of research community AND is not jerking themselves off, knows this.

What 'bad' has come from this GW debate? The push to change?

Yeah, but the wrong change. Climate change on the macro scale has very little to do with anthropogenic factors. Environmental degradation does and while the focus is on CO2, all else is ignored.

About the only REAL change I see are "green taxes". These are supposed to be revenue neutral, but of course they ain't, and fund various pork barreling exercises.

Let's be honest shall we? Of all those squealing about AGW and other environmental malaise, how many have changed their lifestyle substantially?

None? Thought so.

:sleeping:

 

[Pat]

Absolutely.

There are large sums involved here and scientists are humans and self-interested. Anyone that has been around any sort of research community AND is not jerking themselves off, knows this.

Yeah, but the wrong change. Climate change on the macro scale has very little to do with anthropogenic factors. Environmental degradation does and while the focus is on CO2, all else is ignored.

About the only REAL change I see are "green taxes". These are supposed to be revenue neutral, but of course they ain't, and fund various pork barreling exercises.

Let's be honest shall we? Of all those squealing about AGW and other environmental malaise, how many have changed their lifestyle substantially?

None? Thought so.

:sleeping:

I'm gonna give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. The doubt being the corporate's out there are worse than the scientists (bigger $$$ signs in their eyes).

What changes do you expect from people Wayne?

Most changes required for us to live "WITH" Mother Nature just aren't feasible yet. Time, awareness, and I guess some tax's will change this.
We have had it too cheap for too long, now we shall pay up.

(I don't agree with the tax's but It's a sure thing. The gov't will tax everything they fricken can. eg. GST on a tip levy, tax on tax's.)

 

[spooly74]

Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The state of Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday, seeking to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_re_us/polar_bear_lawsuit