Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[MACCA350]

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Not 'becoming', it's always been unstoppable........just as global cooling is unstoppable. The earths climate has been doing swings and roundabouts for millions of years, and will do for millions more.
Any impact we have on these swings in temperature are minuscule in comparison to the changes that occur naturally........you may as well piss on a state wide bush fire, you'd have better luck with that

Cheers

 

[basilio]

Sails you quoted an article a couple of times from the Heartland Institute which suggested that temperatures hadn't increased in a ten year period. That was intended to cast doubt on whether the climate was getting warmer and therefore the increase in CO2 emissions was not having any more effect.

A couple of things. Firstly taking any 10 year period and trying to "prove" a trend is just not scientific. It's just too short a time and that has been acknowledged by McIntyre.

Secondly there are other factors affecting climate which ebb and flow. When you have a look at the graphs which track temperature increase over the last times science can identify La Nina and El Niño effects, volcanic explosions, sunspot activity and so on. These factors exists as well as long term climate cycles and the effects of increased greenhouse gases. We can't change the other issues.

In fact there are 6 quite clear short time temperature declines from 1973 to 2010. But when you look at the overall picture there is a steady clear rise in temperature over the same time. Cool eh !

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-2.html

With regard to wanting to examine all the science rather than just one side of the picture. In the end the research has to add up and make scientific sense. That means other scientists in the field have to see the data and agree it is accurate and that the logic and assumptions made in the paper are justified. Thats what peer review is about and unfortunately very few papers that disagree with the current GW hypothesis have put up a credible evidence based argument.

____________________________________________________________________

I also have reservations about how carbon tax and trade schemes will work. They are certainly open to rorting. But if as a start there was an agreement that adding extra CO2 was going to cause a dangerous change in the climate then the debate could be about the best ways to tackle the issue and how rorting could be stopped. This is where we should have been many years ago.

I started this thread because the most up to date information from the IEA is very confronting.

 

[sails]

Basilio,

It seems that temperatures are not rising at the predicted rate by computer modelling. At least, that's my understanding. If atmospheric co2 has risen by 33% in the last decade and yet temperatures remain somewhat flat, the lack of correlation doesn't help to confirm that rising co2 emissions are causing global warming.

This carbon tax seems to be as clumsy as a bull in a china shop. The treatment may well be worse than the tiny bit of 'cure' we can offer in ACTUAL reduction of global co2.

 

[Julia]

Why not stick to simply saying that in your opinion global warming isn't happening and leave it at that ?

Maybe take your own advice.
You could just say that in your opinion we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.
Instead you go on with your endless proselytising.

 

[noco]

I watched Andrew Bolt interview Professor Will Steffen, the Climate Commissioner.

Andrew Bolt said there had been a decline in Global temperatures in the last ten years, Steffen's asnwer as per the link went whether you were looking at sea, air or upper atmosphere temperatures over 30 years.

He the sea were rising 2-3mm per year. Or should it be that some of those coral atolls were in fact sinking?



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/yet_another8/

 

[Whiskers]

Secondly there are other factors affecting climate which ebb and flow. When you have a look at the graphs which track temperature increase over the last times science can identify La Nina and El Niño effects, volcanic explosions, sunspot activity and so on. These factors exists as well as long term climate cycles and the effects of increased greenhouse gases. We can't change the other issues.

In fact there are 6 quite clear short time temperature declines from 1973 to 2010. But when you look at the overall picture there is a steady clear rise in temperature over the same time. Cool eh !

Inigo Jones postulated early last century that the 'heating' of the earth occurred in about 35 year cycles. He recorded one from 1867-8 and predicted the prompt end of the heat wave of 1902-3.

Jones charted and predicted (before his death in the 50's) major cycles of drought and floods up to the drought leading into this millennium and the approximate end (within a year or two) by his cycle.

So, 1902 + 35 = 1937 + 35 = 1972 + 35 = 2007 about the top of this 'hot' and DRY cycle.

Then there is the 11 year sunspot cycle which is expected to peak mid 2013... BUT is expected to be the smallest sunspot activity cycle for 80 years.

In summary; these two (arguably strongest) cycles point to more 'normal' weather patterns, no extended 10 year droughts (in Aus at least) for quite some time.

Although the effect of the top of the sunspot cycles on the stratosphere and ocean temp's continues to affect weather for a season or so, and this cycle is expected to be quite small and we are coming off the back of the 35 year cycle, it can be seen that temp's should trend lower for another decade or so.

Wasn't it about 2002... the top of the last sunspot cycle, which just happened to be nearing the peak of the 35 year cycle that Al Gore and his band of climate alarmists were getting to their fever pitched high!?

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable? As someone else already said... there will always be global warming and cooling cycles and they will not be stoppable. If they stopped, the cycle of seasons and life will be severely affected.

Maybe we ought to be more concerned with predicting the next 'Mini Ice Age'. Wasn't the last only a few hundred years ago! I suspect that will be much more disruptive to 'human' activities than the recent warming and cooling cycles.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.

Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic. In reality, the scientist needs to do the research into climate and the electrician needs to keep the lighting and air-conditioning working in the art gallery. Leave the economics and choice of artwork to those who actually know something about such things.

What next? The symphony orchestra employs a chef to conduct the orchestra? Next time I get on a plane there's an announcement from the Captain, who just happens to be a medical Doctor, advising that we all get our pulses checked? No... Let musicians worry about the orchestra, pilots fly the plane and leave the climate scientists to research the climate, not the tax system.

 

[sails]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.

Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic. In reality, the scientist needs to do the research into climate and the electrician needs to keep the lighting and air-conditioning working in the art gallery. Leave the economics and choice of artwork to those who actually know something about such things.

What next? The symphony orchestra employs a chef to conduct the orchestra? Next time I get on a plane there's an announcement from the Captain, who just happens to be a medical Doctor, advising that we all get our pulses checked? No... Let musicians worry about the orchestra, pilots fly the plane and leave the climate scientists to research the climate, not the tax system.

Smurf - I entirely agree. It makes no sense that politicians and economists pick up on a cure for a supposed scientifically identified problem.

In medical science, it is scientists who then work on treatment once a cause has been found to an illness - it is most certainly NOT handed over to economists and politicians.

 

[Julia]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.

Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic.

And vice versa, viz Ross Garnaut, an economist, beating the environmental issue up as though he's a climate scientist.

 

[So_Cynical]

You People really need to have a look at this video...then tell me that tiny strip of atmosphere is not worth protecting, not worth doing everything humanly possible to safe guard...our lives depend on it.

Talk about chicken little and the sky falling....dude there is no sky, just some noble gases between us and the void of outer space.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23775

 

[DB008]

Full article from the AGE: Labor sets up carbon tax spin unit

Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo. Definition of Propaganda:


Shame on the spinners...

Good find comrade Sails.
I thought that Australia was a Western Democratic country?
Hmm....

The propaganda department in full swing....

 

[qldfrog]

very disappointing overall:
a talk about a threshold being reached and we got a barrage of posts about the carbone tax in Australia and how bad it is for your wallet and the country; I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average).
As for people denying climate change, get off your PCs: visit the Alps glaciers in Europe, have a walk in SE Queensland and see how blackberries are being replaced by lantanas, or the fact that where I live, swallows do not even bother to migrate anymore all this in a 10y period...but I must be a fanatical green....
if in denial, the peak oil argument at least should be taken into account: shouldn't our society/economy get ready for the end of cheap oil?
anyway, have a good night and how I wish the deniers were right..I would sleep much better.

 

[lurker123]

Maybe take your own advice.
You could just say that in your opinion we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.
Instead you go on with your endless proselytising.

I gotta agree with Julia here, I don't know why you started this thread when its pretty obvious that the majority of the forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change.

It is pointless to try and convince people who made up their minds, its like trying to convince a indoctrined muslim/christian to become a atheist.

The stance i take is that I trust that the scientists who study the field are not collectively trying to mind **** me, and that the human contribution to climate change is real. When I say scientist, I don't mean any scientist, I mean those who study the field. I wouldn't trust my GP to do surgery if I needed it instead I would get it done by the respective specialist surgeon.

However due to the fact that there is no global effort to reduce carbon emissions and the fact that australia by itself will have little influcence. The carbon tax is pretty much just a pointless gesture. Not to mention the fact that it may decrease our CO2 emission by exporting it offshore e.g. the carbon tax increases the cost of steel production within australia making australian produced steel uncompetitive hence more chinese steel is purchased. Thus the increase in chinese steel production and CO2 emission, not to mention all the CO2 emitted from transporting all that australian iron ore to china.

I however highly doubt that the carbon tax is the leading cause of the australian steel industries woes. In my opinion the major cause of their problem is the high australia dollar. I do believe it has indirectly contributed to increasing electricity prices through uncertainty causing lack of investment in electricity generation by the power companies. Since electrical infrastructure is long term, as a generalization, it would be foolish to invest in a new coal fire power plant if a carbon tax is in the works. Likewise it would be foolish to invest in more windfarms if the carbon tax happens to get dismantled by abbot.

Even though I believe in the human contribution to climate change I don't really care about it. There are so much problems that the human race has to deal with that climate change is just 1 problem of many. From peak oil, the peak of other mineral resources, peak in global food production/deterioration of arable farmland, lack of freshwater, overpopulation and our reliance on ever increasing population for economic growth, the fact that our entire economic system is based on endless growth.

To sum it up there are like 3 competing forces at work. There is the earth which only has a limited number of resources which in this way will wipe the human race out of existence. The human race and its inability to accept change unless forced onto it, and propensity for self destruction/ the coming wars over resources. Finally we have technology and the power of technology to overcome limitations.

There are 4 maybe 5 possible outcomes. Outcome 1 and 2 which I think are the most likely is that the human race wipes itself out, or the major conflict/lack of resources in the near future wipes out the majority of our race leaving a few scattered survivors who possibly have to live in a wasteland we now call earth.

Outcome 3 the least likely outcome, where mankind starts changing for the good.

Outcome 4 and 5 where technology allows us to start harvesting the resources of other planets, or start recycling everything extremely efficiently.

Outcome 1 & 2 means mankind has failed to become a class 1 civilization. Outcome 3,4 & 5 means that mankind either made the great transition to class 1 or is well on the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj_UKcBBScc

Since I believe in outcome 1 & 2, yeah we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.

 

[sails]

You People really need to have a look at this video...then tell me that tiny strip of atmosphere is not worth protecting, not worth doing everything humanly possible to safe guard...our lives depend on it.

Talk about chicken little and the sky falling....dude there is no sky, just some noble gases between us and the void of outer space.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23775

No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.

Maybe get yourself on to Chinese or US message boards where they emit almost half of co2 global emissions between them. But I think they are not interested in pricing carbon.

 

[Whiskers]

No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.

Maybe get yourself on to Chinese or US message boards where they emit almost half of co2 global emissions between them. But I think they are not interested in pricing carbon.

You'll no doubt fall on a pretty deaf ear there too.

The typical argument from third world and developing nations like China is that we, the developed world created the current 'pollution/CO2' problem via unrestricted industrial emissions AND want to stop the developing nations from growing under similar low cost unrestricted emissions, and want the developing nations to help meet the cost of our past unrestricted emissions.

With China and the US locking horns in a trade and currency war, the US is in no position to cough up for an emission trading scheme or carbon tax.

But, as far as CO2 and any correlation with warming goes, I firmly believe the closer we get to 2020's the more apparent it will become that it's all an alarmist hoax.

Now, if the tax was on really toxic emissions being pumped into our atmosphere and waterways, that would be a different story.

 

[So_Cynical]

No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.

Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.

WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG REDUCTION REGIME.

 

[ghotib]

Maybe the bankers will save us.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/will-bankers-kill-king-coal

... if the world’s political deliberations on climate change represent little more than a speed hump for Big Coal and Big Oil, then maybe the financial community might present more formidable resistance. That would be a delightful irony considering the mess that bankers have got us into it now, but naked self interest may, for once, serve a greater purpose and force bankers to do what the politicians daren’t: say no to coal.

At least one big bank thinks they might. HSBC Bank overnight produced a report that stated that there are three key reasons why the IEA’s stark scenario – the world will be locked into a plus 2 °C trajectory unless really serious action was taken by 2017 – might be avoided, or at least delayed. These were credit risk, cleantech and stranded assets. ...

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.

WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG EXPORT REGIME.

Corrected for accuracy

 

[macca]

Even though I also believe that this is the closest thing to the truth, it will be fought because pollution in the form of smoke, chemicals, waste products etc are easy to measure and have been substantially reduced in the western world. This would not bring in enough tax income for the snouts in the trough.

You'll no doubt fall on a pretty deaf ear there too.

The typical argument from third world and developing nations like China is that we, the developed world created the current 'pollution/CO2' problem via unrestricted industrial emissions AND want to stop the developing nations from growing under similar low cost unrestricted emissions, and want the developing nations to help meet the cost of our past unrestricted emissions.

With China and the US locking horns in a trade and currency war, the US is in no position to cough up for an emission trading scheme or carbon tax.

But, as far as CO2 and any correlation with warming goes, I firmly believe the closer we get to 2020's the more apparent it will become that it's all an alarmist hoax.

Now, if the tax was on really toxic emissions being pumped into our atmosphere and waterways, that would be a different story.

 

[sails]

Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.

WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG REDUCTION REGIME.

Shame on you SC for being so jubilant that this legislation was passed when it was very clear that the majority absolutely did NOT want this tax. I suspect the next election will be as good as a referrendum on carbon tax.

You seem to be as undemocratic as those who have forced this on to our country against the will of the majority. There should at least have been a referendum on such a major issue if democracy was being respected.

I can only guess that you THINK this tax won't hurt you. But where do you think the billions is going to be found? The 500 will pass their costs on to Australians - they are not charities.

And this from Greg Hunt explaining the $24billion that carbon tax will add to the construction industry by 2020. It's a good article and well worth the read if we want to understand the horrendous impact this tax will have on our working people.

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2238