Global Warming

[Liverpool]

Have you seen Gore's film Livers?

No Disco.

Should anyone really believe what a politician tells us?

Mr Howard never tells porkie pies, Liverpool!

Remote,
If you want to discuss Johnny's lies, or the lies of other politicians...more than happy to chat on the 'Talking Politics' thread.

On Al Gore....I just agree with Evo, in that Al Gore has an agenda.
Also GreenPeace Inc have an agenda, Exxon and big industry have an agenda, and all these agendas amount to nothing, if what we are experiencing in climate change is just a natural occurrence that might last for a million years to come.

The only thing agendas will amount to is $$$ for the parties involved, whether it be Greenpeace Inc. and their collection of 'donations' from people out there thinking they are saving a whale, or protecting some South American rainforest.....and from big business aiming for convoluted emission targets and tax breaks for companies producing clean manufacturing.

Then you have Governments and Oppositions, both using the scaremongering of the Greenies and the Industries, to win over the voters as we draw closer to an election.....when in reality, us throwing our glass in yellow bins, putting our mulch down for our vege plants, and reusing shower/laundry water to wash the car, might make us all feel warm and fuzzy inside that we are 'saving the planet', and that our own little cocoon of a community is better for it......but in the grand scheme of things, it means nothing.

I think with the Earth being 70%+ water....and out of the 30% land, only 5% or so has any type of industry, then the small amount of emissions released into the air wouldn't change much at all when it comes to climate change for the entire planet over the course of the last 200 years, for example.

How much has the planet changed by itself over the course of a billion years?
And of that change....such as the weather warming by many degrees....South America being attached to Africa at one stage, Tasmania being part of mainland Australia, etc.....how much of all this was caused by the human race?
None.

We, as humans, think the world revolves around us...that everything is our fault, and we can fix everything....when in reality, what we could be experiencing is something way out of our control.

 

[RemoteTiger]

You could be right - but then again we could be hastening the demise of our only life support system through our indiscriminant mixing of chemicals into its atmosphere and environs.

That minor (according to your theory) influx of man made pollutants maybe just the catalyst to increase the earths atmosphere and environs chemical change which means man will have to adapt to a new life support system.

I am sure you would want your grand kids and great grand kids to play on the beach like you do/did - go to the MCG to see the Mighty Tiger army in action - this may change if our life support system changes, due to our mis-understanding and arguably mis-management of it.

But then changes to our management of the planet will have a marked effect on your beloved free market economic system - just a thought - no human life support system equals no free market economic system.

Balanced management of our life support system is a must - We must do it now before it costs too much to do or before it is too late...........

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN panel that assesses the scientific literature in the area of climate change and its risks to humans. It bases its conclusions primarily on the peer reviewed scientific literature in the area. It reports are also open to rigorous scientific review. It latest report in early 2007 had the following main conclusions (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007):

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[17].
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

So it seems that the scientific consensus is that it is happening and its cause is human activity.
How to respond to it is another matter, but doing nothing in the hope that it will be alright seems ostrich-like in the extreme.

 

[jb03]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN panel that assesses the scientific literature in the area of climate change and its risks to humans. It bases its conclusions primarily on the peer reviewed scientific literature in the area. It reports are also open to rigorous scientific review. It latest report in early 2007 had the following main conclusions (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007):

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[17].
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

So it seems that the scientific consensus is that it is happening and its cause is human activity.
How to respond to it is another matter, but doing nothing in the hope that it will be alright seems ostrich-like in the extreme.

Hardly earth shattering evidence there. Liberal use of vague terms such as could and such big margins for error.

You guys are far more convincing on the Christianity thread.

 

[Disco08]

Sorry, I simply don't believe that.

Which part jb? That the icecaps could melt, that Holland would be under water, that the dutch people think this is quite worrying or all of the above?

No Disco.

Should anyone really believe what a politician tells us?

You seem to have no problem believing them when it's fits your opinions. Why don't you have a look at it? At the very least it's a good way to increase your knowledge of the cause and effects of global warming.

 

[tigersnake]

It's been pretty widely criticized in the scientific community.

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

All they're missing is Dr Hovind.

You beat me to it duck. pretty basic stuff.

 

[tigersnake]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN panel that assesses the scientific literature in the area of climate change and its risks to humans. It bases its conclusions primarily on the peer reviewed scientific literature in the area. It reports are also open to rigorous scientific review. It latest report in early 2007 had the following main conclusions (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007):

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[17].
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

So it seems that the scientific consensus is that it is happening and its cause is human activity.
How to respond to it is another matter, but doing nothing in the hope that it will be alright seems ostrich-like in the extreme.

Hardly earth shattering evidence there. Liberal use of vague terms such as could and such big margins for error.

You guys are far more convincing on the Christianity thread.

horshit. If a big bunch of scienbtists are saying 'we think this might happen' thats code for 'get your arese into gear people, the *smile* may hit the fan'. The scientific community is notoriously conservative. The cutting edge of global warming research knew what was going on 40 years ago.

I just don't get why people are so resistent. I reckon the idea of a lean, mean, clean economy is exciting. Instead of this lumbering guzzling, spewing one we've got now.

As for the Ducks Holland statement JB, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't half the bloody country bleo sea level with the boy with his finger in the dyke and all that. Doen't sound like much of a stretch at all to me. Bondi, yeah fair enough thats a stretch, but Rotterdam, seems pretty likely to me.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN panel that assesses the scientific literature in the area of climate change and its risks to humans. It bases its conclusions primarily on the peer reviewed scientific literature in the area. It reports are also open to rigorous scientific review. It latest report in early 2007 had the following main conclusions (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007):

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[17].
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

So it seems that the scientific consensus is that it is happening and its cause is human activity.
How to respond to it is another matter, but doing nothing in the hope that it will be alright seems ostrich-like in the extreme.

Hardly earth shattering evidence there. Liberal use of vague terms such as could and such big margins for error.

You guys are far more convincing on the Christianity thread.

The joy of global consensus . If you compare the latest consensus to earlier ones the language is actually far more certain. The use of warming is unequivocal, for instance. The use of statistical probabilities is also part of science. If you want to wager on the 10% chance that they are wrong, that is your prerogative. I know where I will choose to err.

(We are more convincing on the Chrisitanity thread because the evidence is much more cut and dry)

 

[Disco08]

We have seen, or more accurately, we have scientific proof, that during the history of this planet, we have NATURALLY changed over time.
There was an Ice Age, yet what man-made gases and emisssions caused the planet to heat up to such an extent, that all this ice eventually melted?
None.
It happened NATURALLY, and for all we know now, we are at the very start of a NATURAL era

No Livers, all we knows shows us that we are NOT at the start of another natural era (scientists have graphs of temperature patterns over 650 000 years that conclusively show this). Ice ages are caused when the earth is furthest from the sun and the ice melts as it draws closer, hence the obvious patterns. What we know is that humans have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by over a third in the last 3 decades, an occurance that would normally take many thousands of years. We also know that carbon traps heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, kind of like a greenhouse .

 

[Tiger74]

The Dutch dyke system is already underpressure, so its obvious any rise in water levels will require works in the Nederlands.

The one good thing IPCC has done is it has made the debate now WHAT impact will climate change have, rather than DOES it exist. In the past year we are now even seeing poli's in US/EU making progress to at least discussing the issue now (when both were playing politics with it before).

Dont think we need to bring the REM song out on this issue, but action is needed to prevent changes in climatic and agricultural conditions.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I just don't get why people are so resistent. I reckon the idea of a lean, mean, clean economy is exciting. Instead of this lumbering guzzling, spewing one we've got now.

Well said snakeman.

What do we have to lose by making the necessary changes. We are going to have to make them eventually as we live in a grossly unsustainable way at present. We can work towards sustainability and have a healthier and more robust environment to live in. Sounds like win/win from my point of view.

Too many vested interests in the way currently though.

 

[tigersnake]

I really do wonder at what point the sceptics say, 'OK, I'm in'. What will it take?

When there is one crazy old scientist sittng in his office at Melton TAFE saying 'its all natural cycles, we don't need to act'. Will they still be sayin 'Nah see? that old bloke in Melton reckons its a crock'.

 

[Liverpool]

You could be right - but then again we could be hastening the demise of our only life support system through our indiscriminant mixing of chemicals into its atmosphere and environs.
That minor (according to your theory) influx of man made pollutants maybe just the catalyst to increase the earths atmosphere and environs chemical change which means man will have to adapt to a new life support system.

* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[17].
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years[/i]

So it seems that the scientific consensus is that it is happening and its cause is human activity.
How to respond to it is another matter, but doing nothing in the hope that it will be alright seems ostrich-like in the extreme.

Remote/PantheraTigris,

How many man-made pollutants caused this?
How did the human race do this?

Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

Today, scientists believe that 200 million years ago the Earth's continents were joined together to form one gigantic supercontinent, called Pangaea. As the rock plates that the continents sit on moved, the supercontinent broke up and began to move apart.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html

You see, the Earth, throughout time, has gone through massive changes, such as going from the coldest its been, to the hottest its been, and here we are somewhere in the middle, and because over the last 200 years of records (a split second in this history of this planet!), we note that the temperature has risen 0.01 of a degree or something, then all of a sudden, we have to change the way we live, because it is US who drives the climate of this planet?
What a load of garbage.

Mother Nature is far more powerful when it comes to our climate, and she didn't need any help going from the Ice Age to the Iron Age in the past, or to break all the continents into separate entities, so to think that what we, the human race, what we are doing is making a big difference to the future climate of this planet, is quite arrogant, I think.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Hey fellas - there's an old bloke with a long beard building a large wooden boat in the park at the end of my street - plus he has told all of us to go and capture a male and female of every species - reckons he has a direct line to God - do ya think he might know something? :hihi

 

[Tiger74]

Hey fellas - there's an old bloke with a long beard building a large wooden boat in the park at the end of my street - plus he has told all of us to go and capture a male and female of every species - reckons he has a direct line to God - do ya think he might know something? :hihi

No, according to the guy on the internet, it is one of every KIND not every species

 

[tigersnake]

is quite arrogant, I think.

I reckon arrogance is believing we have some inherent right to waste resources. Arrogant and slack arsed. I believe that you Liverpool, are an arrogant slack-arsed buffoon, but kind of entertaining in a wierd way.

 

[tigersnake]

Hey fellas - there's an old bloke with a long beard building a large wooden boat in the park at the end of my street - plus he has told all of us to go and capture a male and female of every species - reckons he has a direct line to God - do ya think he might know something? :hihi

no, but there is a bloke at Melton TAFE who says this global warming is all malarky. I'll let Liverpool google him up for you though. Its compelling stuff.

 

[tigersnake]

I just don't get why people are so resistent. I reckon the idea of a lean, mean, clean economy is exciting. Instead of this lumbering guzzling, spewing one we've got now.

Well said snakeman.

What do we have to lose by making the necessary changes. We are going to have to make them eventually as we live in a grossly unsustainable way at present. We can work towards sustainability and have a healthier and more robust environment to live in. Sounds like win/win from my point of view.

Too many vested interests in the way currently though.

Yep lots of vested interests. I'm a bit bewildered in those saying vested interests on both sides though. You have to look at what those vested interests are based on. The fossill fuel industries interests are based on profit for them, the environmentalist side is based on making the world a cleaner, more sustainable place for all.

Whats happening at the moment is very interesting. The scientific basis for the fossil fuel or denialist case has shrunken to point where its untenable. Bit like a polar bears ice flo.

Sure the scenarios for what the extent of the effects will be vary, but the fact is, the globe is warming, we are virtually sure its mostly caused by human activity, and there will be effects.

Its the old tactic of the conservatives, they pick out an extreme example or scenario, and use that to ridicule the whol argument. For example 'those dumb greenines reckon Mt Kociosko will go under, they are full of crap' etc.

 

[Tiger74]

Hey fellas - there's an old bloke with a long beard building a large wooden boat in the park at the end of my street - plus he has told all of us to go and capture a male and female of every species - reckons he has a direct line to God - do ya think he might know something? :hihi

no, but there is a bloke at Melton TAFE who says this global warming is all malarky. I'll let Liverpool google him up for you though. Its compelling stuff.

Im from Frankston, but even I crack up about using the guy from melton TAFE in a global warming debate. Tell the fool to put his bong down, stop baking the new batch of brownies, and actually teach something of relevance and use. I hate propaganda hijacking education (and yes I mean you Monash, LaTrobe, and RMIT).

 

[tigersnake]

I was joking to make a point 74. I'm from Ballarat and I know Melton intimately, unfortunately.