Global Warming

[bullus_hit]

Has she had 10 holes in one in a single round of golf?

Gina Rinehart is clearly capable of eclipsing Kim Jong Ill's feat of 10 holes in one, unfortunately she is too busy making holes in one particularly large desert continent (not to mention her invaluable conbtributions in upholding family values).

 

[Liverpool]

Just because I gave-up the argument doesn't mean you answered the question livers!
If your posts were taken as an answer to an exam question in an undergraduate course "Demonstrate how non-anthropogenic causes have contributed to the post-Industrial Revolution global warming trend" you'd probably get marked 1 or 2 out of 5. The mark would be for naming some possible causes but not demonstrating how they contributed to the warming trend.

Antman/Azza,
Why are we just looking at post-industrial revolution anyway?
The planet had global warming and cooling well before the Industrial Revolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
In fact, 20,000 years ago we were 10 degrees colder than we are now...and 130,000 years ago, we were 4.5 degrees warmer than we are today.
The

There are a multitude of theories related to natural causes to the Earth's climate and global warming.
Some relate to 1500 year cycles, some relate to changes in the glacial cycles, there are orbital cycles, and there are solar cycles.
ALL have bearings on the atmosphere, the earth, and hence the climate.

Then we have cataclysmic events such as enormous volcanic eruptions, sun flares, earthquakes and the like which have also changed the earth's axis and temperature.

All of hear from the pro-'man-made' lobby is "well, a graph shows that the temperature has gone up since the industrial revolution and therefore, its man's fault. Thats our proof.The End".

As I've repeatedly said...there is not one specific reason or event that causes global warming. It is a multitude of phenomena, all having effects on one another that is helping determine the temperature of the planet. Throw in some man-made pollutants as another variable, and you have the climate change we see today.

 

[tigersnake]

Gina Rinehart is clearly capable of eclipsing Kim Jong Ill's feat of 10 holes in one, unfortunately she is too busy making holes in one particularly large desert continent (not to mention her invaluable conbtributions in upholding family values).

I take it you're a big fan Bullus?

Seriously though. She's got a hide like a Rhinocerous. She's got incredibly wealthy incredibly quickly due to parentage and timing, and extracting our resources, and she fights any attempts for a fairer tax rate tooth and nail. $500 odd bucks a second shes making. I have real trouble seeing things from her perspective, and given her power, I have concerns about her grip on reality.

The potential for people like Rinehart to undermine legitimate scientific evidence and theory and retard political action is a scandal.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Antman/Azza,
Why are we just looking at post-industrial revolution anyway?
The planet had global warming and cooling well before the Industrial Revolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
In fact, 20,000 years ago we were 10 degrees colder than we are now...and 130,000 years ago, we were 4.5 degrees warmer than we are today.

I think that they have clearly stated that natural cycles do occur in Earth's climate. The current warming trend doesn't follow those natural cycles and correlate very well with human activity. The causative effect of greenhouse gases is also established, hence the consensus on this matter.

 

[Azza]

Antman/Azza,
Why are we just looking at post-industrial revolution anyway?

The planet had global warming and cooling well before the Industrial Revolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
In fact, 20,000 years ago we were 10 degrees colder than we are now...and 130,000 years ago, we were 4.5 degrees warmer than we are today.

Geez livers. Those cold and warm periods are due to eccentricities of the earth's orbit around the sun. They're part of a cycle that's been happening for about a million years. The post-industrial warming is NOT explained by natural factors such as orbital forcing.

If your logic is that humans coped back then so should be able to cope with AGW now, modern humans only evolved during the the last 1 or 2 turns of this cycle. Our whole culture of farming, writing, city-building etc only established itself in the stable warm period since the end of the last glacial (ice age). The environmental changes at the extreme ends of the cycle would have been calamitous for people at the time. How would we cope now with kilometres of ice covering most of Europe and North America? At the same time in Australia we'd be looking at anything inland of the divide (all our food producing areas) becoming desert dunes and treeless saline wasteland, with all the inland rivers drying to a trickle except when carrying saline groundwater.

 

[AngryAnt]

Antman/Azza,
Why are we just looking at post-industrial revolution anyway?
The planet had global warming and cooling well before the Industrial Revolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
In fact, 20,000 years ago we were 10 degrees colder than we are now...and 130,000 years ago, we were 4.5 degrees warmer than we are today.

Please make the stupids stop.

Clearly if we can identify a warming trend coinciding with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we are by definition comparing this to the time before the Industrial Revolution.

 

[AngryAnt]

:hihi

Clearly I can't make any headway arguing on the merits of actual science, so I'll stop flogging the dead equine to try to get it to drink from the well of rational and critical thinking, and we'll try something simpler.

Subsidies to the fossil fuel companies don't inhibit natural innovations...people, technology, and demand in the market do.

Rubbish. Subsidies impact price which influences demand, lowers the production and R&D costs, and inhibits investment innovation in technologies that would be more cost effective if the subsidies to the inefficient industry were not there. They distort the market and mean that we as taxpayers pay more to keep inefficient technologies going.

Of course, like most conservatives you are against government interference in markets until it's something that you have an ideological investment in. Then it's all fine.

 

[Liverpool]

I think that they have clearly stated that natural cycles do occur in Earth's climate. The current warming trend doesn't follow those natural cycles and correlate very well with human activity. The causative effect of greenhouse gases is also established, hence the consensus on this matter.

Geez livers. Those cold and warm periods are due to eccentricities of the earth's orbit around the sun. They're part of a cycle that's been happening for about a million years. The post-industrial warming is NOT explained by natural factors such as orbital forcing.

If your logic is that humans coped back then so should be able to cope with AGW now, modern humans only evolved during the the last 1 or 2 of these cycles. Our whole culture of farming, writing, city-building etc only established itself in the stable warm period since the end of the last glacial (ice age). The environmental changes at the extreme ends of the cycles would have been calamitous for people at the time. How would we cope now with kilometres of ice covering most of Europe and North America? At the same time in Australia we'd be looking at anything inland of the divide (all our food producing areas) becoming desert dunes and treeless saline wasteland, with all the inland rivers drying to a trickle except when carrying saline groundwater.

Please make the stupid stop.
Clearly if we can identify a warming trend coinciding with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we are by definition comparing this to the time before the Industrial Revolution.

Its NOT just natural cycles....its NOT just cataclysmic events...and its NOT just man-made pollution.
Its is all of these linked together, working against one another, and the resultant changes that influence the whole world and its atmosphere.

Look at the graph again...we had ups and downs in the past you know:

 

[mld]

I thought I did, but I often misread peoples points. You suggested that there is a cost (contrary to my assertion that there is no down-side to moving to a renewable energy future) i.e. a hit to our standard of living. I suggested our standard of living very high and can afford to come down without causing real pain. I maintain the real cost of the status quo is much higher than people realise and is driving increasing prices now without the effect of forcing industry to shift to a more sustainable model which will actually reduce the cost of producing electricity into the future. Why not be a world leader, at least a regional leader, in clean energy?

I'm really not sure where to go with this, it is just a collection of motherhood statements made without any evidence to support assertions like the cost of energy production being reduced.

No offence, but it isn't as convincing an argument as you seem to believe it to be.

 

[Azza]

Its NOT just natural cycles....its NOT just cataclysmic events...and its NOT just man-made pollution.
Its is all of these linked together, working against one another, and the resultant changes that influence the whole world and its atmosphere.

Look at the graph again...we had ups and downs in the past you know:

My comments on orbital forcing were only in connection to your quote of the 25000 and 130000 year dates. Your diagram only reinforces what I've been saying, and is 1st or 2nd year undergraduate physical geography stuff. It's absolutely no revelation to climate scientists who probably contributed to the damn thing. If you can produce one that uses similar natural elements to reproduce in detail the temperature change in the last 100 years you'll have something worth discussing.

 

[Azza]

Ok, livers, now you've put that graph into an earlier post, confusing the whole discussion. Time for me to drop this.

Final word tho is that you're right there are multiple contributors to climate change, and yes it's being going on since the earth began You won't find any credible climate scientist denying it, no matter how much you try to put words into their mouths.

The current warming trend cannot be explained by known natural processes, not even with minor human intervention (as you're prepared to concede). It needs anthropogenic emissions to be incorporated as the major contributors.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I think if you look at my first post on the topic on the first page, my stance has not changed one iota between then and now

The earth is warming up...thats real.

Is it human's fault?....No...I don't think so. That part is myth.

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, where the planet will heat up over millions of years, until it becomes unbearable for the human race that we know today to live, but over time, the human race will evolve, just like creatures from the Stone Age, Ice Age, right through to today have survived many extremes.

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.

I think we could be forgiven for thinking that you have changed your stance to include anthropogenic causes. Baby steps.

 

[Liverpool]

I think we could be forgiven for thinking that you have changed your stance to include anthropogenic causes. Baby steps.

No difference whatsoever, Panthera.

Said it wasn't human's fault then...still say it now.

 

[bullus_hit]

I take it you're a big fan Bullus?

Seriously though. She's got a hide like a Rhinocerous. She's got incredibly wealthy incredibly quickly due to parentage and timing, and extracting our resources, and she fights any attempts for a fairer tax rate tooth and nail. $500 odd bucks a second shes making. I have real trouble seeing things from her perspective, and given her power, I have concerns about her grip on reality.

The potential for people like Rinehart to undermine legitimate scientific evidence and theory and retard political action is a scandal.

Not a fan of Rinehart or any of the other billionaires who prance around like they were the ones who planted the minerals in the earth. It's all about self interest and has little to do with the general health of the country. It irks me even more that characters like Rinehart think they can hijack democracy and simply buyout the media, her disgraceful attempt at abandoning the charter of editorial independence at Fairfax reeks of megalomania and narcissism.

As for her views on climate change, well let's just say it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with her bottom line. Most of the denialists shun the science, or at least cherry pick their information to serve their own agenda. I cannot think of an issue that has been researched as thoroughly as climate change, yet still we have to deal with the same idiotic conclusions delivered by the likes of Rinehart, Bolt, Pilmer, Jones, McCrann and all the other commentators being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry.

I'm still amazed that people today pretend we're not making any impact on the general climate. Deforestation is robbing the earth of it's natural air-conditioning system, atmospheric CO2 levels are at dangerously high levels based on the ice samples taken from the Artic and Antartic, the seas surface temperatures are heating up and the glaciers are rapidly retreating.

To merely suggest that the earth's temeperatures naturally fluctuate is a moot point, man's impact is like an overlay on existing systems, and one which could rapidly accelerate changes which would otherwise occur over a much more prolonged period.

Ultimately, I doubt there's much we can do aside from watch and wait for the carnage. When the globe's population hits 10 billion, there will be little we can do to stem the bleeding from environmental degradation and the collapse of ecosytems. Humans are much like rabbits, driven to consume and breed until entire populations begin to collapse.

Even the most starry-eyed idealist would concede that we have given little consideration to an economic paradigm which is clearly unsustainable. Unfortunately, the only way to change the system is to allow the system to implode upon itself. Perhaps not the solution by which the high and mighty economists would dare voice, but a brutal reality nevertheless.

 

[Azza]

Quality rant Bullus.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No difference whatsoever, Panthera.

Said it wasn't human's fault then...still say it now.

Again, I'm not anti-manmade pollution as reason behind global warming but I don't think it is the only reason or even the main reason. But it is a contributor.

Except when you are hedging your bets?

 

[Liverpool]

Except when you are hedging your bets?

So because I say that man-made pollutants are not the main cause of global warming, thats classed as "hedging my bets"? :cutelaugh

Going by this thread I've said for near on 5 years now that natural causes and phenomena are the main reasons for global warming and that blaming man-made pollution as the cause is a myth.
However, as a variable, it would be stupid to dismiss man-made pollution as having no affect whatsoever.

I've said my bit on this thread anyway so good luck on December the 21st when the Mayans prove us all wrong :hihi

 

[Azza]

I've said my bit on this thread anyway so good luck on December the 21st when the Mayans prove us all wrong :hihi

How'd you reckon we're going to go Livers? Sucked into a black hole created by the Hadron collider? Comet impact?

 

[AngryAnt]

Going by this thread I've said for near on 5 years now that natural causes and phenomena are the main reasons for global warming and that blaming man-made pollution as the cause is a myth.

5 years? Don't forget your huge melt-down when you disappeared for a couple of years to recuperate. The degree of cognitive dissonance you are displaying already suggests you won't last too long before another "holiday" is required.

 

[Liverpool]

How'd you reckon we're going to go Livers? Sucked into a black hole created by the Hadron collider? Comet impact?

Not sure Azza.....maybe a sun flare, if you are thinking of a short term extinction...not necessarily from a 'direct hit' though but a possibility.
Longer term, the sun is an obvious problem.

5 years? Don't forget your huge melt-down when you disappeared for a couple of years to recuperate. The degree of cognitive dissonance you are displaying already suggests you won't last too long before another "holiday" is required.

During my hiatus (melt down? what are you talking about??? ???), in which I got quite bored here and decided to travel...my views did not change, therefore it was 5 years (and still going).

I indeed will be travelling again in a couple of months and may disappear for a period, but I assure you, it won't be due to any perceived "melt downs" you think I may suffer and if I was weak of mind to have any such melt down, I can quite confidently say it won't be due to anyone on an internet forum