Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Knobby22]

I correlate it to spreading lies , misinformation and propaganda with an alliance with business to achieve aims not related to the good of the ordinary people.

Viva la difference.

 

[Calliope]

I correlate it to spreading lies , misinformation and propaganda with an alliance with business to achieve aims not related to the good of the ordinary people.

I agree. That AGW alarmism in a nutshell.

 

[Julia]

I agree. That AGW alarmism in a nutshell.

+1. With thanks, Knobby, for supplying such an excellent definition.

 

[basilio]

Just reading a review on Skeptical Science website of a recent paper that examines how the Antarctic went from a mild climate with woodlands and animals to its current status as a frozen wasteland. Quite fascinating

The End of the Hothouse
Posted on 16 December 2011 by John Mason

A new study links major atmospheric CO2 drop to the onset of Antarctic glaciation, 33.7 million years ago

Forty million years ago, Antarctica had a pleasantly mild climate, its mountains and shores flanked by swathes of woodland in which a diverse mammalian fauna flourished. Today, it is one of the most inhospitable places on Earth. Throughout this time, the continent has remained in pretty much the same place, straddling the South Pole. It follows that a drastic climatic change must have occurred, but how?

That has been the subject of much research over the years and a good picture has gradually emerged. Now, a new paper in the journal Science has clarified the role of rapidly-declining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the temperature-plunge that saw the rapid onset of Antarctic glaciation, 33.7 million years ago. The fall in CO2 concentration was from 1000-1200 ppm down to 600-700ppm, at which point it was cool enough to allow glaciers to start to form. That our current emissions path takes us beyond the latter levels by 2100 means that we are heading straight towards a planet that may no longer sustain polar ice-caps, resulting in a steady melt and relentless sea-level rise that will duly threaten every coastal city in the world. We'll see what the research found out in a moment, but first let's take a quick look at the Cenozoic Era, the geological timespan during which the glaciation of Antarctica began

.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/end-of-the-hothouse.html

I suppose what is really interesting is the lengths these damn scientists go to justify their alarmists views. And there are hundreds of these damn studies. Persistent pests arn't they !

 

[sptrawler]

Just reading a review on Skeptical Science website of a recent paper that examines how the Antarctic went from a mild climate with woodlands and animals to its current status as a frozen wasteland. Quite fascinating

.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/end-of-the-hothouse.html

I suppose what is really interesting is the lengths these damn scientists go to justify their alarmists views. And there are hundreds of these damn studies. Persistent pests arn't they !

Well basillio, read post 243, unless we go nuclear there is sod all can be done about global warming.
Get over it, pay your tax and enjoy the warm weather.

 

[Julia]

Well basillio, read post 243, unless we go nuclear there is sod all can be done about global warming.
Get over it, pay your tax and enjoy the warm weather.

No warm weather to be enjoyed here in SE Qld. No wonder they changed the title from Global Warming. Unbelievably cold for December.

 

[derty]

Here are a few thoughts from my favourite comic xkcd.
The text below the comic is the caption as it appears when you hover over the image on the site.


There are so many well meaning conservatives around here who just assume global warming is only presented as a moral issue for political reasons.
http://xkcd.com/164/


I mean, what's more likely -- that I have discovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.
http://xkcd.com/675/


scientists are also sexy, let's not forget that.
http://xkcd.com/154/

 

[basilio]

Nice work Derty. Thanx

 

[wayneL]

Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:

All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.

None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.

 

[Calliope]

Nice work Derty. Thanx

I know you have been hard at work (or is it labour of love?) for over three years trying to ramp up AGW hysteria on this forum. It must be gratifying to know that you have a few disciples. But I don't think you can claim any conversions...which is the true measure of an effective preacher.

 

[ghotib]

Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:

All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.

None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.

You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.

 

[wayneL]

You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.

Only you ladies can help me with that.

 

[Calliope]

Russian scientists (who basilio says are liars) say that polar bears are not endangered, but are thriving.

LEADING Russian scientists have rejected claims by their counterparts in the US that the polar bear is endangered by climate change.

The Russians have accused the Americans of skewing data to support claims that polar bears are drowning because of melting ice, and of treating bears cruelly during research.

The polar bear has emerged as a powerful symbol during the debate on global warming, with environmentalists warning that reduced Arctic ice due to climate change threatens the survival of the world's largest land predator.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...olar-bear-trauma/story-e6frgcjx-1226224432321

 

[derty]

Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:

All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.

None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.

It's interesting how our biases warp our logical interpretations and extrapolations.

I don't quite get the same message. And don't really know where the truth lies. I just know it is not at the extremes.

The main points I see when I read these are:

1. Regardless of the debate, politics and vitriol the underlying phenomena keeps rolling along. The science will be unambiguously apparent with time.
2. Experts in the field are the ones that will usually have the best understanding of that field.
3. Armchair scientists will unlikely reach correct conclusions due to limited and/or incorrect understanding of the science.

As carbon emissions will not be reigned in we will definitely have the question answered, at least in my lifetime.

Anyone wish to place a wager on none of the next 5 years being the highest on record?

 

[explod]

Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:

All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.

None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.

It is the truth, in fact.

Jeremy Leggett's (Oxford Scholar) book "Half Gone, Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis" 2005 in fact explains very clearly how the big side of town, oil, has worked at trying to discredit the science. And they cannot, but they do get through to blockheads, and in that I mean plural, so take no offence.

You need some real facts there wayneL not just cunning bluster and hot air.

 

[wayneL]

Anyone wish to place a wager on none of the next 5 years being the highest on record?

Real or adjusted?

 

[orr]

And when people are stuck with their head in the sand thinking that Australia can do something about this without the major polluters, they are in even worse denial than they think of those with more common sense.

Australia emits 1.3% of global co2 emissions. Our target (at great expense) is 5% of our tiny 1.3% slice of the pie - that's 0.65%.

Below is a pie chart based on wiki info. See the little orange slither? That is Australia's 1.3%. And imagine that divided further by 20 to give 5% - that is our 2020 target at huge expense to this country. Futile? I think so.

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

Exactly right And when you've got plonker's like this Gates clown saying things like:


Mr Gates, the founder of Microsoft who's holidaying in Sydney with his family, said someone had to lead on tough global issues and it had to be hoped that by setting a good example, others would follow.

"I wish the world at large found it easier to get together on this because a carbon tax is a very important tool to encourage the invention of low-cost energy technologies that don't emit carbon," he told ABC Television.

"To help that happen, a carbon tax really is a key piece."

What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.

 

[Knobby22]

What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.

Yea! Developed by by people who hold Lesbian Puppet Workshops!!

 

[Knobby22]

What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.

Yea! I'm sure it was developed by by people who hold lesbian puppet workshops developing plays critiquing the consumerism of modern Russia!!

And Mr Gates gives to charity, bloody pinko!

 

[basilio]

Russian scientists (who basilio says are liars) say that polar bears are not endangered, but are thriving.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...olar-bear-trauma/story-e6frgcjx-1226224432321

Calliope just a few points.

1) I never said Russian scientists were lying. Knobby asked you if you thought they were after you dismissed an earlier post I wrote that highlighted the huge increase in methane emissions from the melting arctic zone. I was taking the xxxx out of you by suggesting that because they were Russians and taking about climate change etc they automatically had to be liars. So be clear- I never said the Russian scientist talking about the emissions of methane were liars . Okay ?

2) For your own sake can you at least re quote yourself accurately ? Your Post 231 says "There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate." Your Post 234 tries to requote your earlier statement but says "their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change". They have quite different meanings.

Regarding The Australian story. Amazing bit of spin trying to somehow paint a rosy picture of the polar bear world.

For a bit more about the facts behind the polar bears check out http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/will-polar-bears-survive

You'll even find your Russian researcher is on the scientific staff studying the polar bear population.

There was another Polar bear website (this time Russian based) which offered its own discussion on the subject. I have quoted one of the more relevant sections because it illustrates how some media can distort the threat to the polar bear population for its own ends.

So, what do we see on Wrangel Island? What conclusions can be drawn from observations there?

Ice conditions in the vicinity of the island began to change drastically in 1990. Melting ice floes deprive polar bears of an optimal habitat. Consequently, polar bears have to spend several months ashore each year. They come ashore during the last stages of an ice floe’s disintegration. The animals reach land in the coastal areas nearest to their respective ice floes, on which they have hunted during that period. Most polar bears in the north-eastern Russian Arctic come ashore on Wrangel Island. The rest wade onto the Chukotka coast and north-western Alaska. Some bears remain on the edge of pack ice drifting towards circumpolar areas. Consequently, the polar bear population is divided into four seasonally isolated populations each year. The proportion of animals going ashore in various areas depends on the ice movement during the ice disintegration process.

The increased number of polar bears in coastal areas does not mean their population is growing. Rather the opposite, they are facing a critical situation – they have lost their primary areas of habitat and the opportunity to hunt seals in the sea ice. This is a difficult period for the polar bear population. As soon as the sea freezes in winter, the bears promptly leave land and start hunting in the ice – they only stay on the mainland as long as there is no ice. When threatened, during the absence of ice, they literally swim off into the open sea. They are forced to swim long distances before they can find suitable ice floes. This saps their strength and considerably reduces the chances for survival.[/B]

http://premier.gov.ru/patron/en/bear/news/17267