Global Warming

[Liverpool]

Would you like me to explain why those articles don't say anything either way on human-induced global warming Livers? I'll do that, then you can explain what evidence you use to refute the findings of the large majority of the best climate scientists in the world and their 'supercomputers' as you put it, to generate your 'own line of thought'.

You have the floor Livers.

The articles were from a previous post of mine on this thread where I was saying that the Earth has been able to fluctuate extremes from lava and volcanos through to ice and snow.....on its own...WITHOUT human intervention....that such a change is able to be brought about by a natural phenomenon, which we call 'mother nature'.

If such a force can do this....then why do people (or in your case, 'experts') think that mankind can reverse such a force that has shown without a doubt that it has the power to change temperatures so dramatically over a long period of time?
I think it is rather arrogant and egotistical of man to think that they are the ones responsible for climate change and therefore man is able to reverse climate change.

FFS...we have so many variablities at play here and yet people like yourself jump on "it is our fault and it is up to us to fix it" when we are dealing with things such as our orbit around the sun changing......movement of the 'plates' (where plate movement can slowly, over time move a land mass closer the equator meaning less snow and therefore, less water).......volcanos....the cycle of the sun...Eli-Nino/El-Nina...all things that are NATURALLY occurring but can have an influence on the way the climate acts, as we have seen throughout the lifespan of this planet.
That is not my opinion or my 'lack of knowledge'...but fact....however, don't let the facts get in the way of a good sensationalistic story.

Interestingly, Mars is also experiencing 'climate change'....is that man's fault too? or are these scientists/experts from NASA not up to your superior intellectual standard on the issue:

Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece


Gee....a natural phenomenon...who would have guessed?


Malin adds, “Mars may help us decipher how natural climate systems, on Mars and Earth, respond to rapid perturbations. The observations, if they do in fact lead to climate changes on Mars, also suggest that natural climate change may completely dominate human-induced climate change. Some people have suggested ‘terraforming’ Mars [altering its environment to make it more habitable], but our observations suggest that Mars is already experiencing a larger change than humans may ever be able to induce.”

http://www.geotimes.org/feb02/NN_MarsCC.html

 

[Disco08]

The articles were from a previous post of mine on this thread where I was saying that the Earth has been able to fluctuate extremes from lava and volcanos through to ice and snow.....on its own...WITHOUT human intervention....that such a change is able to be brought about by a natural phenomenon, which we call 'mother nature'.

If such a force can do this....then why do people (or in your case, 'experts') think that mankind can reverse such a force that has shown without a doubt that it has the power to change temperatures so dramatically over a long period of time?
I think it is rather arrogant and egotistical of man to think that they are the ones responsible for climate change and therefore man is able to reverse climate change.

Scientists understand and take into account that the earth's climate warms and cools due to natural phenomena. You realise that right?

Interestingly, Mars is also experiencing 'climate change'....is that man's fault too? or are these scientists/experts from NASA not up to your superior intellectual standard on the issue:

These supercilious questions and remarks really do nothing for the discussion.

 

[Liverpool]

Scientists understand and take into account that the earth's climate warms and cools due to natural phenomena. You realise that right?

I do.
And I've also stated this:

* I've agreed with you lot that the earth is warming.
* I've agreed that it is good if people get something out of recycling, saving water, planting trees...even if it just makes people feel better inside themselves.
* I've agreed even that man has had a (very) small role in the earth heating up.
* I've even said that people on BOTH sides have vested interests....that people from your side go on about we'll be living underwater in 30 years, etc....and people on the other side who completely dismiss that the cimate is changing at all. BOTH sides have vested interests, mostly due to money and financial backing from various groups.

But I will not agree that it has been the main culprit in the planet's climate changing....and I won't agree that if we stopped doing everything we do now, and revert back to the stone-age, that all will 'return to normal'.

It seems Mars is showing signs of high speed climate change without intervention from man....so my question is valid....what makes the 'experts' that Azza talks about so correct, when we have evidence of climate change happening on Mars similar to earth that is NATURALLY occurring, that scientists/experts from NASA have pointed out?
Why can't NATURALLY occurring climate change be the superior reason we are suffering global warming and that man-made greenhouse gases and emissions are just a small percentage of the overall reason we are experiencing this change?

Again....as I say in my points above...I'm not saying that man has had NO effect on global warming.....I just disagree that Azza and others think we are the main reason it is happening, when I think we are overstating our blame and understating what happens naturally.
That is all.

These supercilious questions and remarks really do nothing for the discussion.

They may not....but if people want to have a personal slang at me by calling me "ignorant" because I won't conform to their opinion and that of their 'experts', then they can cop a bit back.
Works both ways.

 

[Disco08]

If there's a correlation between rising carbon levels in the atmosphere and rising temperatures (with demonstrated reasoning behind it), and we know that man is responsible for pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere doesn't it stand to reason that there's a very good chance that the increased greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the increasing temperatures?

 

[Liverpool]

If there's a correlation between rising carbon levels in the atmosphere and rising temperatures (with demonstrated reasoning behind it), and we know that man is responsible for pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere doesn't it stand to reason that there's a very good chance that the increased greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the increasing temperatures?

If scientists/experts from NASA can show that high speed climate change happening without any human intervention can occur, and that temperatures have risen 0.5 degrees Celsius since the 1970s on Mars (uninhabitated by humans)......then why can't similar naturally occurring change at high speed happen on Earth?

I'm not arguing what you are saying Disco....all I am saying is that yourself and Azza are OVERstating the human intervention part and UNDERstating the naturally occurring part....when there is past evidence of climate change on this planet since the dawn of time (without human intervention) and high speed climate change on Mars (without human intervention).

 

[Disco08]

Like I said though, scientists understand the natural factors which cause the earth to heat up and cool down but they still say that the current changes in climate are due to increasing carbon levels.

The climate change on Mars also has reasons behind it which are not currently occurring on Earth.

 

[Azza]

They may not....but if people want to have a personal slang at me by calling me "ignorant" because I won't conform to their opinion and that of their 'experts',

Keeping on stating this doesn't make it any more true. There's only one reason i called you that, and it's nothing to do with whether we agree or not.

then they can cop a bit back.
Works both ways.

Did I cop something? I didn't notice. I've already explained why rapid non-anthropogenic climate change establishes nothing. Can't you understand?

 

[Liverpool]

Like I said though, scientists understand the natural factors which cause the earth to heat up and cool down but they still say that the current changes in climate are due to increasing carbon levels.

The problem though Disco is the "scientists" you mention are who? the IPCC?
I could counter your IPCC with a bunch of scientists from the other side of the fence.
Like I said earlier....BOTH sides can bring arguments and counter-arguments to the table....both can brings fancy graphs and reams of data to support their respective sides....(and both have vested interests) but at the end of the day, if people like Azza and yourself feel better by believing we are saving the planet from this huge catastrophe that will destroy us by recycling and cutting down greenhouse gases...then great.
But my opinion is that I believe the scientists from the 'other side' of the argument who don't believe mankind is the 'be all end all' of civilisation on this planet, and that mother nature plays a far more important role in what we are experiencing.
Anyways, I doubt we'll all be here to find out when Armageddon comes (and a shame i won't be able to tell you 'told you so' ;D)

The climate change on Mars also has reasons behind it which are not currently occurring on Earth.

And those reasons are NATURAL....not from anything mankind brought upon Mars.

 

[Disco08]

I know. But the "NATURAL" reasons aren't occurring on Earth right now.

The problem though Disco is the "scientists" you mention are who? the IPCC?
I could counter your IPCC with a bunch of scientists from the other side of the fence.

I don't think you could. There are hundreds of scientists that contribute to the IPCC and almost every relevant science institution agrees with their position.

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

 

[Liverpool]

I know. But the "NATURAL" reasons aren't occurring on Earth right now.

The fact that these 'reasons' on Mars can occur NATURALLY should show people that mother nature does have the ability to change climates and why can't a climate change (maybe not as fast as what Mars is experiencing) happen here on Earth over a period of time, also caused predominantly by mother nature 9with a very small help from mankind)?

I don't think you could. There are hundreds of scientists that contribute to the IPCC and almost every relevant science institution agrees with their position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So because you claim the 'majority' are on the side of the IPCC means they are right?

Read the abstract from this report...from a 'scientist' (expert) in this field:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

 

[Disco08]

So because you claim the 'majority' are on the side of the IPCC means they are right?

I'm no scientist, so if I'm going to believe anyone on the subject it's going to be the experts, especially when it's an overwhelming majority. It's pretty much like the difference between believing that the universe is 6000 years old and that it's 13 billion years old.

Read the abstract from this report...from a 'scientist' (expert) in this field:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

Senator Minchin also referred Mr Kiernan to a critique of the economic review of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

If you find him convincing you should check these blokes out.

The fact that these 'reasons' on Mars can occur NATURALLY should show people that mother nature does have the ability to change climates and why can't a climate change (maybe not as fast as what Mars is experiencing) happen here on Earth over a period of time, also caused predominantly by mother nature 9with a very small help from mankind)?

No one's arguing this point with you. Everyone agrees the Earth's climate changes naturally. There's hundreds of thousands of years of evidence that shows that very clearly. What the scientific majority is saying is that taking this information into account it is still 90% or more likely that man is causing current changes to the climate.

 

[Liverpool]

I'm no scientist, so if I'm going to believe anyone on the subject it's going to be the experts, especially when it's an overwhelming majority. It's pretty much like the difference between believing that the universe is 6000 years old and that it's 13 billion years old.

The link I posted was a testimony given before U.S Senate by Dr Robert Carter.

Read his qualifications on the first page....and tell me if whether you think he is an 'expert' or not?
And then read his abstract on page 2 and tell me why you think he should be any less believable than your experts on the IPCC?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

Azza,
You can read the above too seeing you are interested in scientists and experts only and not people like me.

 

[Disco08]

Sorry I edited my post above.

 

[Liverpool]

Senator Minchin also referred Mr Kiernan to a critique of the economic review of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

EXACTLY what I have been saying.....that there are vested interests on both sides.
Now, you can't tell me that your 'experts' are all pure and white and have no vested interests as well.

Therefore, at the end of the day.....we have 'science" itself being ignored and scientists not delivering their data in a non-emotional manner, but usually in highly emotive rants because they have interests from government funding, oil companies, greenpeace, etc.

the IPCC are no different Disco.

 

[Disco08]

government funding, oil companies, greenpeace, etc.

Gee, I wonder who's got the most to be gained out of that lot.

 

[Liverpool]

Gee, I wonder who's got the most to be gained out of that lot.

It doesn't matter who has the most to gain financially or for their careers...it is just the fact that people from both sides are skewing data to suit their extreme beliefs.
We have gone away from true facts and evidence of science.....to it becoming a political and emotional debate.
Yes, you can bring all your IPCC data into it and I could counter it.....I can discredit your experts and you can counter that.
Lefty tree-huggers believe that we are on the verge of armageddon and we will be flooded and sno will melt, etc, etc....and then you have right-wing extremists who believe that the globe is not warming at all.

I know I have brought this up before....but instead of global warming being a totally negative thing that we are apparently causing and we should be fighting it......what are the actual benefits of global warming?
We are a creature that can adapt and change to suit different environments.....we have creatures int he animal kingdom that have changed to suit climate and environmental change.

So if we both agree that global warming is happening....and that it is only the REASON (or percentage) behind it happening that we disagree on....the next step is, is global warming as bad as the doomsdayers are making out?

 

[Disco08]

Are you familiar with the concept of peer review?

 

[Liverpool]

Are you familiar with the concept of peer review?

yes...what about it?

 

[Disco08]

You understand that the IPCC's findings are all subject to peer review and that still the vast majority of scientific institutions agree with their position?

You can't think the vast majority of the world's scientists are all conspiring to lie to the world about climate change can you?

 

[Liverpool]

You understand that the IPCC's findings are all subject to peer review and that still the vast majority of scientific institutions agree with their position?
You can't think the vast majority of the world's scientists are all conspiring to lie to the world about climate change can you?

Well, in one of the most important IPCC reports (the one on greenhouse gases being blamed for the last 50 years of warming)....62 scientists contributed to this report with over half of them having their work edited.

Here is an open letter to UN by 100 scientists:


Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see this PDF) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf


Like I said Disco.....we can counter each other until the cows come home.
The question we should be now asking is not what is actually causing any climate change...but how can we adapt to it and is it all bad as we keep on hearing?
Apparently Greenland tourism is looking forward to it...

http://www.greenland.com/content/english/tourist/news/news_archive/climate_change_attracts_american_tourists