Global Warming

[Panthera tigris FC]

Exactly. So if NASA won't say there's definitely a causal relationship, why should I believe Al Gore?

Scientists are always guarded in their conclusions.....establishment of causation is not always straight forward even in the presence of a clear correlation, as Djevv pointed out.

Have a look at the latest IPCC finding published earlier this year. These represent the scientific consensus on the matter. The main conclusions:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, 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)[13].
* 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 past 650,000 years

In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

(Wikipedia)

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Tigers of Old]

My own personal feeling is one in all in with measures to combat the problem, regardless of a countries level of development.

Agree with that Dj.
Particularly as many developing countries have been forcast to feel the effects more than most.
If & when the world does start to bust up then economies aren't going to be as important as survival.

 

[Djevv]

Agree with that Dj.
Particularly as many developing countries have been forcast to feel the effects more than most.
If & when the world does start to bust up then economies aren't going to be as important as survival.

While some countries can do effectively nothing, and others do, even though it is 'fair' due to the relative poverty of the nations, it will become unworkable.

Personally I would like all countries to cut emissions, but developed countries to do the bulk of R&D.

 

[Tiger74]

While some countries can do effectively nothing, and others do, even though it is 'fair' due to the relative poverty of the nations, it will become unworkable.

Personally I would like all countries to cut emissions, but developed countries to do the bulk of R&D.

Thats what is happening. Developed world is to subsidize development on low emission resources and industries for introduction to the developing world. This is because with the timeframe we are wanting to work to, the developing world does not have the R&D capability or the capital to fund the type of research and infrastructure needed.

A baby step in the right direction.

 

[evo]

Kinda embarrassing.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

 

[Liverpool]

Andrew Bolt told me the earth hasn't heated up since 1998. 6pac told me his word is gospel.

I know who I'd put my money on....and it ain't the "25% of a slab"...

 

[jb03]

Kinda embarrassing.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

:hihi

 

[ssstone]

Kinda embarrassing.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

:hihi funniest read,self serving hypercrites.

 

[Liverpool]

Kinda embarrassing.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

:hihi....what a joke.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/music/arctics-cool-on-live-earth/2007/07/05/1183351342650.html

or

http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=SX539337P&news_headline=wembley_urged_to_take_meat_off_live_earth_menu

 

[Azza]

But then you can find things like this that to a lay man like myself, suggest climate change is very much a cyclic thing, as are carbon dioxide emissions. It's all rather confusing and is the reason why people such as Gore, who are so adamant that we are the root cause, aren't necessarily 100% correct.

Accompanying blurb:

"These graphs show temperatures and CO2 recordings from ice cores taken in Antarctica going back 400000 years. The time scale is reversed with the current time on the left. Here we can see the effect of several glaciations and the brief periods of warming in between. When there are high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere it causes higher world temperatures. When the CO2 levels are low then the temperatures are low. This shows that CO2 is the decisive working greenhouse gas affecting earth's climate. More alarmingly, the current level of CO2 is substantially higher than in any time during the last 400000 years and the level is rising at an accelerating rate.

Note: Although a relationship between CO2 and temperature exist and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the conclusion that the different levels of CO2 are the driving force of temperature changes is actually not supported from these graphs."

The 120,000 year temperature fluctuations and many of the smaller scale fluctuations in the graph reflect variations in the earths orbit that control the amount of solar radiation impacting the earth. The CO2 variations mirror temperature/orbital changes, probably as a result of a positive feedback mechanism. Orbital changes increase solar radiation and warm the earth. This results in increased atmospheric/oceanic circulation, resulting in release of CO2 from oceanic reservoirs. This results in warming due to trapping of heat by atmospheric CO2, resulting in heightened circulaton and further release of oceanic CO2 and so on and so on).

We're currently in an interglacial or warmer period, so CO2 levels are high relative to the height of the ice ages. The difference now is the significant increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities is adding to the already naturally high CO2 level.

The link between the greenhouse gases and heightened atmospheric/oceanic circulation is well known, and the increased CO2 release since the industrial revolution is well known. Now there's signs of increased atmsopheric activity. This may have nothing to do with the human CO2 release, but only a very rash gambler or an idiot like Andrew Bolt would stick their head in the sand and refuse to act, on the chance there's no connection leading back to industrialisation. Even if there's a natural reason for CO2 increase on top of the human one, we can make a difference by reducing the human impact.

Once again the short-sightedness of the nay-sayers is stunning. The opportunities for our industries to jump on the climate change band wagon that the world is embracing (and that the US will too once Bush gets the shove) is fantastic. We can lead the world in clean energy and make heaps of money, and perhaps save the planet. But all we hear from conservatives is that it's bad for the economy. Anyone who can't see our economic opportunities here isn't fit to run a tuck shop, let alone a nation or a major corporation.

 

[Liverpool]

Once again the short-sightedness of the nay-sayers is stunning. The opportunities for our industries to jump on the climate change band wagon that the world is embracing (and that the US will too once Bush gets the shove) is fantastic. We can lead the world in clean energy and make heaps of money, and perhaps save the planet. But all we hear from conservatives is that it's bad for the economy. Anyone who can't see our economic opportunities here isn't fit to run a tuck shop, let alone a nation or a major corporation.

Save the planet? :rofl
I think mother nature will determine whether the planet will be saved or not.

Look.....I think it is great that people put their cans and bottles in a bin and we recycle, or that we harness the sun for energy instead of coal....and we plant trees and all the rest of it. If it makes people happy and gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside that they are making a difference for their immediate community.....then great, fantastic, good on you all, congratulations, keep up the good work.
More power to you!

Also....I don't doubt that the world is getting hotter/warmer or the climate is changing.
Agree 100%...no problem from me.

But whatever we do here on this planet as mankind will, in the end, be fruitless.

Over the history of this planet, it has undergone extreme changes....from lava spewing volcanos, dinosaurs, and the like....right through to the ice age, with snow, wind, and ice.
These extreme differences didn't happen overnight....but they DID happen, and they DID happen without mankind using greenhouse gases.
What decided the planet to change over a long period of time to what we have today, was mother nature.....and mother nature has the power to change the planet again, with or without mankind interfering.

but like I said....if people get the impression they are going to save the planet and that makes them feel good about themselves, then that is great.

 

[Six Pack]

Gee, Livers, patronising to say the least!

 

[Disco08]

Why change now?

Over the history of this planet, it has undergone extreme changes....from lava spewing volcanos, dinosaurs, and the like....right through to the ice age, with snow, wind, and ice.
These extreme differences didn't happen overnight....but they DID happen, and they DID happen without mankind using greenhouse gases.
What decided the planet to change over a long period of time to what we have today, was mother nature.....and mother nature has the power to change the planet again, with or without mankind interfering.

Did you read the part of Azza's post which described why this happens perfectly, and why the current observations are different to anything that's happened on this planet before?

Also, I think it's pretty obvious that 'perhaps save the planet' means saving humankind's ability to survive on this planet. If current trends continue (despite Bolta's claims that global warming stopped in 1998, lol) that isn't a given.

 

[Liverpool]

Did you read the part of Azza's post which described why this happens perfectly, and why the current observations are different to anything that's happened on this planet before?

Where did I say that humankind didn't have something/anything to do with climate change.....I'm sure it has.
But not enough to change the cycle of the planet overall.....and we could go back to the stoneage tomorrow and the world would still keep heating up.

I think mother nature has more to do with the planet changing than mankind has.....and that we are overstating our own importance in this matter and understating a force much more powerful than us.

 

[Disco08]

Where did I say that humankind didn't have something/anything to do with climate change.....I'm sure it has.
But not enough to change the cycle of the planet overall.....and we could go back to the stoneage tomorrow and the world would still keep heating up.

Why? By rights it should be starting to cool down ever so slightly.

I think mother nature has more to do with the planet changing than mankind has.....and that we are overstating our own importance in this matter and understating a force much more powerful than us.

So in other words you think the majority of Earth's scientists with expertise central to climate change are stupid?

 

[Tigers of Old]

So in other words you think the majority of Earth's scientists with expertise central to climate change are stupid?

I think you are underestimating the sageness of 'gut feeling' Disco.

 

[jb03]

I think you are underestimating the sageness of 'gut feeling' Disco.

Now you are getting with the program Tooheys. It's taken a while but I knew it would happen.

 

[Tiger74]

Save the planet? :rofl
I think mother nature will determine whether the planet will be saved or not.

Look.....I think it is great that people put their cans and bottles in a bin and we recycle, or that we harness the sun for energy instead of coal....and we plant trees and all the rest of it. If it makes people happy and gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside that they are making a difference for their immediate community.....then great, fantastic, good on you all, congratulations, keep up the good work.
More power to you!

Also....I don't doubt that the world is getting hotter/warmer or the climate is changing.
Agree 100%...no problem from me.

But whatever we do here on this planet as mankind will, in the end, be fruitless.

Over the history of this planet, it has undergone extreme changes....from lava spewing volcanos, dinosaurs, and the like....right through to the ice age, with snow, wind, and ice.
These extreme differences didn't happen overnight....but they DID happen, and they DID happen without mankind using greenhouse gases.
What decided the planet to change over a long period of time to what we have today, was mother nature.....and mother nature has the power to change the planet again, with or without mankind interfering.

but like I said....if people get the impression they are going to save the planet and that makes them feel good about themselves, then that is great.

The Earth does change, but this is about keeping it as livable for us as long as possible. The conditions the dinosaurs lived in are not really ideal for humans.

If we are accellerating this process, doesn't it make sense to try and minimize this impact?

 

[Azza]

Where did I say that humankind didn't have something/anything to do with climate change.....I'm sure it has.
But not enough to change the cycle of the planet overall.....and we could go back to the stoneage tomorrow and the world would still keep heating up.

I think mother nature has more to do with the planet changing than mankind has.....and that we are overstating our own importance in this matter and understating a force much more powerful than us.

Perhaps, perhaps not. One of the reasons human-induced climate change has been a contentious issue for so long (at least 30 years) is the systems involved are so complex. There are thresholds involved where a relatively minor change can result in major impacts - the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. That's why it's best to minimise our impacts on 'mother nature', because we don't know when something we do could tip us over the edge into a very different situation. Any such major change is more than likely going to mean tragedy for people somewhere on the globe, because we've established ourselves at the limits of our tolerable environment.

As to not acting because of the futility of any such action - I'll bet you voted in the federal election, despite it not making the slightest difference to the outcome. Was that onyl because it was illegal not to, or were you getting satisfaction out of supporting your party? The same applies to people who choose to recycle. Perhaps as individuals they have minimal impact, but as with elections collective action is very significant.

 

[tigersnake]

But whatever we do here on this planet as mankind will, in the end, be fruitless.

you contradict youself habitually liverpool, just picked this bit out. As long as you're aware that this particular opinion is in direct contradiction to the vast, overwhelming majority of global scientific opinion, fine. We stuffed it, we can fix it. Its prett simple. Whether the politics of entrenched vested interests and the seeminingly unstoppable cycle of overproduction and consumption allows us to fix it is entirely another matter.

you are a flat earth merchant liverpool. I'm just calling a spade a spade.