Global Warming

Have an environmental cause? Announce and discuss here.

Moderators: Shari, collnarra, Butts, beach_defender, Forum Moderators

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:24 pm

Just looking at this site, the tosser has quoted himself!!!!

"What changes in the US after HURICANE KATRINA was a feeling that we have entered a PERIOD OF CONSEQUENCES"- Al Gore

User avatar
dammit__01
Owl status
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 10:26 pm
Location: R.I.P. Signatures

Post by dammit__01 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:53 pm

chompers ive already argued with you about global warming and you have not come up with answers showing what i have said it wrong ... what i didnt tell you was i believe global warming and rising water levers and believe it is a trouble that needs to be dealt with. the only reason i did this is to prove you only know as much as the movie told you e.g. you were being a parrot repeating the movie nd i wantd to exploit this ... sorry but had to be done :wink:

if you want proof look in a little country somewhere in africa. there is an island off it where the water has creeped up 10m from where it would lie last year.

theres 2 sides to the story and a. al gore is a lier .'. what he said half was actually bullshit. b. theres the true side aswell which if alarming to us all. c. there is alot of evidence supporting both sides and with the amount of liers protecting global warming claims it does make u wonder, so i guess right now im border line.

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:10 pm

Dammit_01 wrote:c. there is alot of evidence supporting both sides and with the amount of liers protecting global warming claims it does make u wonder, so i guess right now im border line.


Very good.
I'm much the same. I don't know who to believe because every organisation or lobby that posts and publishes information has a hidden or overt agenda. The reason you hear so much about global warming (this has been said in a previous topic) is because it raises concern. Who wants to hear news that there is nothing to worry about?
It's much the same as this North Korean stuff, I don't know what to think. The US governement and UN (US puppet[Kofi Annan has said this in his most recent book]) tell us that we are doomed because NK has Nuclear Weapons, but independent thought and research suggests otherwise.

User avatar
Chamberess
Owl status
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:35 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know...

Post by Chamberess » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:38 am

Media will most often than not have a bias.So of course when reading an article on the green peace website we can be sure of the bias involved when creating the article.

In relation to dammit's comments about myself being a parrot.I spoke to someone on Realsurf shortly after seeing the movie and told them that it was very obvious Mr Gore only utilised and presented that data which made his argument for the global warming crisis more credible and powerful.It's quite clear that there is other data around that would weaken his case.

But as far as im concerned,regardless of what HE says,it is still a serious issue and one that i read up on,research more deeply in my own time.I've attended lectures/presentations on the subject also and you can't ignore the basic underlying message that all scientists are presenting.

Bought the "green issue" of surfing mag this morning and of course it had articles referring to the global warming issue at hand.

"Like a bunch of spoiled kids who don't clean up our rooms because we know our parents will"-quote from evan slater's ediitorial about the reaction of surfers towards actively helping the environment.A great analogy of how we as humans are treating the global warming crisis i think.

lovenutz
regular
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:30 pm

Post by lovenutz » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:59 am

If anyone is serious about preserving our environment please do not support the Howard goverment.

User avatar
Chamberess
Owl status
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:35 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know...

Post by Chamberess » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:01 am

lovenutz wrote:If anyone is serious about preserving our environment please do not support the Howard goverment.


i never do.i vote greens every time.

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:27 am

Lets be realistic, Greens will never win... It would be nice to have legalised mary-jane for terminally ill patients in pain, but its a noble dream.

And lovenutz....If you don't vote for Liberal, Labor is the only other contender. With Big Kim's consumption enough to have banished starvation and malnourishment for a life time, do you think they will be any better in bringing change. Especially when their largest group of supporters (blue collar workers like coal miners in Newcastle!) would be put out of a job, I doubt they would risk pausing or even suggesting the seizure of coal mining (ie Fossil Fuels).
So if i care about the well fed polar bears on the polar caps, i'll vote with Liberals and get a heap of tax breaks then invest my hard earned into research.

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:28 am

O, and Chamberess, full props for research, I hate cretin's taking things at face value.

User avatar
panaitan
Grommet
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Not where I should be

Post by panaitan » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:50 am

Nick W and Dammit

Good science encourages that any findings are open to debate - but don't spend 5 minutes looking at a couple of websites and think that the climate change sceptics have any where near the amount of horsepower behind their arguement than a vast majority of climate scientists.

The problem with the science is that is very complex - and in simplifying it for the lay person it suddenly looks weaker.

If you really want to make a trully informed decision on the science then go to the reputable sources.

The definitive one is the 3rd assessment of the IPCC in 2001, with literally thousands of scientific papers to support it:

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

However note that this report is going to be superceded by the 4th report early next year. The draft of the 4th report has been leaked and seems MUCH more certain of the science and is much more alarming - because it confirms that the most likely scenario for us is to have to have a 3C change by 2050. It does however reduce the chances of extreme changes of 5-6C. Either way we are still in serious sh&&%.

If you don't trust a few thousand UN funded scientists then try the pre-eminent bodies in the US or the UK:

http://www.pewclimate.org/

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/

If you would rather have an aussie ( and more understandable version) then try Tim Flannery's book: "The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth"

Another good book is by Elizabeth Kolbert: "Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change"

In regards to the claims made by Senator Inhofe in Chamberess's you tube link:

1. The disputed hockey stick graph arguement has been around for along time - a US senate enquiry found that such arguements are baseless. The transcript of that enquiry is available at:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_ ... _27_06.cfm

2. The claim about the levels of ice actually growing in some parts (based on a 2002 study) have also been debunked by a couple of recent NASA studies as reported in the Sydnet Morning Herald on 14th of September this year. To quote from the article:

"For more than 25 years Arctic sea ice has slowly diminished in winter by about 1.5 per cent per decade.
But in the past two years the melting has occurred at rates 10 to 15 times faster. From 2004 to 2005, the amount of ice dropped 2.3 per cent; and over the past year, it's declined by another 1.9 per cent, according to Comiso.
A second NASA study by other researchers found the winter sea ice melt in one region of the eastern Arctic has shrunk about 40 per cent in just the past two years. "

I also find it hard to accept critisism of Al Gore's arguements based on just seeing his movie. If you want to understand his arguements in full then read the book: "An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It" - at 325 pages it has alot more evidence supporting the claims.

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:12 am

Nick-W wrote:I did say devils advocate


And I'll continue to do so.

I don't have time to read articles any more with the impending HSC exams. But from your post (which was very good) I'll knit-pick and make you cry :wink:

From 2004 to 2005, the amount of ice dropped 2.3 per cent; and over the past year, it's declined by another 1.9 per cent, according to Comiso.


So, if you use this information with great confidence. The improvement of .4% from 2.3 - 1.9 means that the issue of Global Warming is diffusing?
Ofcourse not thats silly, so is having a sample size of "more than 25 years".

My point on the hockey stick graph remains, it's not a perfect graph, so until i see flawless evidence, ill stand on my saop box.

I'll wait for the 4th report, as im not happy with what has been supplied :twisted:
And, are you you a biologist with a biased arguement? lol, jokes, but chalenge yourself and read the opposing papers, i am sure that there are thousands, just the same as your papers that say it a sure thing.

User avatar
panaitan
Grommet
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Not where I should be

Post by panaitan » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:34 am

Nick

Nick-W wrote:
So, if you use this information with great confidence. The improvement of .4% from 2.3 - 1.9 means that the issue of Global Warming is diffusing?
Ofcourse not thats silly, so is having a sample size of "more than 25 years".


Yes you are absolutely right with the sample size of 25 years on the earths climate system - it is just a piece of enecdotal evidence that support some of the modelling. It can never be proof of climate change.

However this leads to the most compelling issue - it is simply NOT possible to get definitive scientific proof until AFTER the event - and by then it could be over for all of us.

Did you realise that there is no definitive proof of a causal link between asbestos and lung cancer. We just know that there is high incedence of people who worked with certain types of asbestos who contracted lung cancer up to 50 years LATER. Some people showed no symptoms at all. Despite scientists raising the alarm decades ago - it took millions of pairs of affected lungs before industry was forced to stop using it.

With global warming there is only one earth - with no back-up copy if we f*&ck up this one.

So my arguement is the opposite to yours - unless you can DEFINITIVELY prove that man is NOT causing global climate change - then we need to assume that we are causing it, and take the appropriate action.

But please keep the devils advocate position up - it helps to educate and inform people on both sides of the arguement :wink:

dudhead
Grommet
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:34 am
Location: coalcoast

Post by dudhead » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:33 pm

i dont think anyone disputes the short-term trend indicates rising mean temperatures.

however, this is a TREND. what is 1000yrs to billions?

geological time has seen sea levels far higher than current and far lower than current resulting from global temperature change.
If the earth is warming up "naturally" again there is nothing that is
N O T H I N G
short of nuclear winter to slow the process.

the earth is a self-regulating system.
More heat = more evaporation = more cloud cover = lower UV = less heat.
note: time and air quality are not factored into this equation.

User avatar
Chamberess
Owl status
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:35 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know...

Post by Chamberess » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:59 pm

panaitan:arrow: some great words there!

but i only had time to skim through this.ill have to sit down tonight and have a good crack at putting some words on this topic,rather than the quick dribble i can manage at work

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:25 pm

Sorry, but I too have to now stew over some research to play mr devil's friend.
I'll attack later tonight, bring your battle shield and dice to the flag pole on the 3rd hour of night. There i shall meet thee dungeon master

Nick-W
barnacle
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm
Location: The Internet

Post by Nick-W » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:38 pm

In the mean time, here is a little something that I stumbled across earlier.

It basically provides that we are doomed anyway, so why bother?

I like Number 8 the best...
http://www.askmen.com/toys/top_10_150/1 ... html?FLASH

vb
Local
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:57 pm
Location: above the bends

Post by vb » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:57 pm

Super nova, Nick ... Sirius B went up three years ago and we'll all know it on December 12, 2012 (the day the Mayan Calendar stops)

vb
Local
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:57 pm
Location: above the bends

Post by vb » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:58 pm

Sorry, make that the 21 st of Dec

Sleepy
regular
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:22 am
Location: bed

Post by Sleepy » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:39 pm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/threeday-heat-wave-for-sydney/2006/10/11/1160246191727.html

It's funny but I don't recall things like this happening all that often 15 years ago... Don't know how many New Years were as hot as the last one... Anecdotal evidence for sure, but it certainly helps to support much of the scientific evidence from ice cores, marine oxygen isotope records, etc.

And panaitan puts forward some very appropriate points. Will be interested to read your response, Nick. Another question... what DISADVANTAGES are there in cutting back our carbon dioxide output? If there are advantages to it, but not disadvantages, why not do it?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests