I find it amazing

[Baron von Richthofen]

I find it amazing that people will believe anything a scientist will say without proof, for example being told global warming is caused by increase levels of co2, when you ask them how they come to this conclusion they say that it is only a theory because the only thing they can find is co2 level have increased, the theory has not been proved or disproved now NASA has evidence that global climate change is caused by solar activity not co2 increase, the amount of co2 in our atmosphere (http://au.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkzGWSLhKcXkBZF4L5gt./SIG=163dg6qda/EXP=1253677590/**http://au.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&y=Search&rd=r1&fr=yfp-t-501&p=atmosphere&SpellState=n-3795448301_q-fpyH%2FKh5m14P0TZMSRaJlAAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-top) is % .0387 the Preindustrial Level 1750 was % .0280, not much co2 in our atmosphere, a flower farmer in Canada had 2 identical green houses with the same amount of foliage he decider to put extra co2 into one green house to see if the plants would do better, they did but the tempture in both green house remained the same the green houses were not temptured controlled and the amount of co2 added was about %4 of total volume
I think NASA is right and the we are not contributing to global warming
They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment
:sunny:

[Baddad]

Hi Vars, :)

I would like to get some figures to compare differences in solar activity.
From prior to 1930 would be a little difficult.:D In the short term, yes, but its inadequate and I assume scientists have already accounted for that already. Otherwise they could not have the credibility to be called scientists.

We, in SE Qld are having 30deg+ C in Aug and Sep. If there was increased solar activity causing this it would at least be in the scientific journals you would think.

I may move to NZ.

Cheers Marty

[supernova1965]

I thought we were going through a period of record low Solar Activity

[BerrieK]

Interesting theory Vars.

My understanding was that at present we were in the midst of an unusually long solar minimum at present, with likewise unusually low solar magnetic field, solar wind speed and temperature. So the decrease in solar activity must be 'causing' global warming...or perhaps the hypothesis needs to be reversed ....is global warming causing a decrease in solar activity? Have we stuffed the sun too?

Kerrie ;)

[Baron von Richthofen]

They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

[mental4astro]

What the heck, let's keep pumping crap into the atmosphere, allow ddt to be used by third world countries ( and we then eat this food, why not, its cheaper), dump pollutants into the ocean, denude forests, relocate polluting industries & technologies to more accomodating buerocracies, consume, consume, consume.

I'm tired, I'd better have a lie down & a Bex.

[Baron von Richthofen]

They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

[Waxing_Gibbous]

We made it through the last ice-age with only our brains and some pointy sticks!
If, indeed the global climate is changing - SO WHAT? I think we'll adjust.
I was a true-blue member of greenpeace from 1974 - 1995.
But they and other enironmental fellow-travellers, increasingly let politics and polemic replace scientific evidence. Also any hardships that had to be borne always seemed to have to apply to somebody else and not them.
This is a long debate so I'll leave it for another day and leave you with this:
As any chemist or bio-chemist knows CO2 is not some lethal toxic agent, but the one of best natural fertilizers around. Oxygen is far more toxic.
An increase of 2% CO2 would be virtually inconsequential. An increase of 2-3% O would be catastrophic.
I know my chemistry. It took me 3 goes to pass the course! :D

[Baron von Richthofen]

You got that right

[Baron von Richthofen]

Just to add when there is an ice age, northern hemisphere is covered in ice and snow but in the southern hemisphere it becomes dry and hot

[FredSnerd]

Good one Vars. Funny joke. You're a card you are.

[Baron von Richthofen]

If any body has more information to the contra please post

[Barrykgerdes]

I have been saying this for years. However you are a bit out in your % it was .028% in 1750, .03% when I was at school and is now around .04%. Still quite insignificant. Our whole existance is based on the carbon cycle. As fast as we pump it into the air the more the plants lap it up and re-cycle it as wood and O2. It is a pity our illustrious leader does not make his own investigations instead of listening to his toadies.

Further we are getting some man made climate change. It is caused by the air currents being changed by massive land clearance in the tropical regions. But it is not making the world hotter or colder, just making some areas hotter and drier and others colder or wetter.

Barry

[Baron von Richthofen]

I totally agree with you, sorry put decimal point in wrong place

[astroron]

I am sorry ,but I find it incredible that all the scientists who believe in human induced global warming are classed as cheats charlatans and down right Frauds who have another agenda,BUT all the global warming doubters are all fine upstanding scientist who are being shouted down by the United nations and governments around the world.
There was not Six Billion people on the earth when we had the last Global Warming crisis.
Please tell me why the global warming scientist want to make us believe there is a problem when there isn't?
What do they have to gain?

[Baron von Richthofen]

MONEY
They are being given large sums of money for there investigations
It would not be the first time (year 2000 bug)

[astroron]

And so the Oil Companies, Coal Companies and all the other businesses that are holding the world to ransom are as pure as driven snow and have no financial interest in keeping the status quoe:rofl::rofl::rofl:
What do people like Dr Tim Flannery , David Attenborough and a legion of eminent scientist have to gain?
You did not answer the point of the Six Billion and more people on this planet pumping vast amounts of crap into our atmosphere, wiether it be CO2 or other pollutants, which did not happen in the last global warming time.:question:
I would rather we try do do something now than wait to see who is right or wrong:rolleyes:
It maybe not effect you and me but I think in all probability it will effect generations to come.
End Of my involvement in this post:thumbsup:

[Robh]

This argument is fallacious. Your implication is that small changes produce negligible effects. In fact, there is a mathematical theory around small changes in initial conditions producing enormous long term variations in conditions (chaos theory and "the butterfly effect").
You say that as fast as we pump CO2 into the air the more the plants lap it up. Then why is the increase in atmospheric CO2 accelerating?
Unfortunately the problem is not just CO2. As temperature seems to be increasing, ice sheets receding, we will also have the beginnings of problems with increasing atmospheric water vapour and methane. Under the worst-case scenario, if we managed to initiate a runaway greenhouse problem we could end up like Venus.

I agree with Ron. If the increasing consensus among scientists is that we have a global warming problem related to human induced emissions then we should take notice. The scientific community is its own harshest critic. Any scientist who attempts to produce misguided or non-rigorous conclusions to their research would be stripped of their credulity. If you don't think science works this way then who or what can you trust?

Regards, Rob

[barx1963]

The May/June Edition of Australian S&T discussed the relationship between Solar activity and global temperatures. At solar maximum, when there are lots of sunspots, the sun emits more raiation due to the bright areas surrounding the spots. Research indicates that the cycle causes flucyuations in global temperatures of between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees. So the extended solar minimum we have been seeing is probably mitigating temperature increases.
As to human induced climate change, when I was at school, the idea of the greenhouse effect was simply commonly accepted science. The atmosphere traps heat and acts to stabilise temperatures on the earth. It has only become controversial once the possibility that we humans could affect it become known.
Climate is delicate, we know this because the climate has changed many times in the past, and we are not really sure why. I think conducting a huge uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere (remember we have only one!) is dangerous. Over the years we havew managed to reduce the amount of pollutants that we pump out into the environment without our lifestyle or growth being affected, CO2 is simply another output that should be controlled or reduced.
Personally I would love it if we could cut our reliance on fossil fuels, regardless of the effects on climate.
Lastly, from my reading, it seems the majority of climate scientists agree that there is risk involved in pumping out more CO2. If money is their motivation, surely the one scientist who can disprove the warming effects of human activity could make a poultice from the oil, coal etc companies?
Anyway thats my 2 cents worth!

[joe_smith]

A good report about global warming is this one from the UNEP/GRID (http://www.grida.no/publications/climate-in-peril/) its a 7 meg PDF just click the PDF download button. Its set out very good and has lots of info and facts from the United Nations, and is very readable to the average person.

[Esseth]

This is my view as well, i am not 100% sold on the idea of man made global warming, however reducing emmisions from vehicles and factories can not be a bad thing. So while even though i am still open to argument (i have read numerous arguments for both sides as well as done my own inverstigation and remain on the fence), it is really a pointless argument because the outcome is a good thing regardless.

[dpastern]

Alexander, you are correct (imho). Unfortunately, it seems that human nature is deeply unable to accept responsibility for our actions. This is rather sad. We seek to blame everything else under the Sun (pun intended), rather than look at what WE are doing.

Anyways, I've said my bit. I have my beliefs, and no one else is going to change those. Man is destroying our planet, plain and simple.

Dave

[FredSnerd]

Ohhh Look we got 2 jokers in this thread now. Honestly you guys :rofl:

[astroron]

Come on Vars, has the cat got your tongue:question:

[Baron von Richthofen]

In the dark ages about the 1300, if you said the world is round and not flat you would be ridiculed, tortured and then executed, people weren't very open minded then like now

[PeterM]

Jokers? go and read the 4th IPCC report chapter 5 regarding rapidly rising sea levels, (below) and see who the joke is really on. It provides nothing to support a warming planet. Throughout it uses provisional words. "likely", "more likely","possibly", "expected", "inferred", "may". This is not science, it is a guess at best and more like hocus pocus, driven by the agendas of those who are and stand to make big bucks. The snake oil is back in circulation.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf

I have Just read Ian Plimers's Heaven and Earth - it is well written, by a scientist who knows his stuff. This should be mandatory reading before entering this nonsensical debate that will have us all paying through the noses, lets see who supports it then.
PeterM.

[astroron]

Vars, give us your answer on my above questions:question:

[Baron von Richthofen]

I am not saying we should not clean up our pigsty of a planet it is well over due, what I am saying is that we have no control over global warming, it is a natural event

[FredSnerd]

Peter, you really do need to learn something about the scientific method. People who try to accurately quantify risk by using words like "likely", "more likely","possibly", "expected", "inferred", "may" are behaving precisely as scientists should. And really thats the issue here; "risk". Since a clear majority of respected scientests are saying we got a problem then sheer basics tell us that we ought not to take the risk of ignoring them. But no it seems that unless you can have absolute unassailabe proof you're not budging. Thats fine but I'm pleased to say you're in the minority. Even assuming we are all being hoodwinked you might want to consider the price we pay if you are wrong (human existence wiped out) and the price we pay if you are right (we lose a few bucks to another scam). I sincerely hope you feel the weight of that responsibility when you try and convince us all that we need do nothing about global warming.

Also Ron made the point earlier. If the $$$ is anywhere its on the side of the argument that wants us to disbelieve global warming. Take a look at the negotiations in Denmark at the moment. Could anything be clearer then that its industry and mining that does not want us to take any precautions against global warming. A crash copurse in logic would assit you greatly I think.

[fringe_dweller]

i love that analogy i often see in regards to this debate, goes something along the lines of .... a bloke who goes to 9 doctors who all tell him he has cancer, until finally he finds a 10th doctor who tells him he doesnt have cancer, and he goes see i told you so!

[FredSnerd]

Vars,

You still have not answered Ron's point. I think you need to do that.

Are you that confident in the little time you have spent studying the causes of global warming to say forget what the majority of the world's respected scientists are saying come follow me. Do you really want that responsibility when you consider that the study you have done is a pittence compared to the study put in by the professional scientists who are saying we are the cause of the problem.

Very foolhardy approach if you ask me.

As for your earlier post about the dark ages, people were also saying then that there are witches and goblins and they were being ridiculed then. Is that an argument for believeing in witches and goblins today. I dont think so.

[Baron von Richthofen]

All the studies have not produced one shred of evidence it is there best guess, there has not been one experiment to prove or disprove there theory, and I have been researching clime change for 20 years and I have found preceding an ice age there has been global warming so what did cause the global warming every 40,000 years Dino Farts and we are due for an ice age
and did you ever think that global warming is causing an increase in CO2

[dpastern]

Let's be logical here - 7 Billion people, most of them use tools that are reliant on carbon fossil burning - i.e. pollution. Do you really think that this won't be an issue? Let's compare it to smoking - nicotine tar does do damage to human lungs. For years, the cigarette companies knew it was an issue, but lied and said that there was no issue. Science didn't know enough, so couldn't prove it. The cigarette companies lied to protect their profits - much like the mining & petroleum companies are doing now I believe. Whole countries economies are tied to this archaic form of fuel - to rely less on them will destroy said economies. Those at the very top of the economy chain do not wish to lose money, or more importantly, power. They will, and are, doing everything in their control to ridicule the documented issues, so that they will continue to financially benefit from fossil fuel burning etc.

Dave

[FredSnerd]

Oh Please, "have not produced one shred of evidence"; it's only "there best guess"; "there has not been one experiment to prove or disprove there theory". Thats all just silly. You've been "researching" (as opposed to studying or having an interest in) climate change for 20 years? Best to say nothing I think.

[Baron von Richthofen]

I see a lot of people here still believe the earth is flat
Unless some one can produce an experiment that can be reproduced to prove global warming is caused by CO2 increase
I am no longer posting on this post

[astroron]

What Ian Plimmer and other climate sceptic's say is fact:rolleyes:, but what climate change advocates say is only hypothesis:screwy:

[FredSnerd]

Did anyone see that documentary last night on the efforts of the Christian right to have "intelligent design" taught in school as part of the science curriculum. They used arguments like the following to discredit Darwin's theory of evolution:-

"All the studies have not produced one shred of evidence"; it is just "there best guess"; "there has not been one experiment to prove or disprove there theory"; and "no one can produce an experiment that can be reproduced to prove global warming is caused by CO2 increase.".

Nonsense, just nonsense.

[Coen]

Climate Change is a perhaps an unfortunate phrase and is now politically/emotionally hijacked - the climate does change, always has, always will. It becomes a question of scale and what are the drivers.
Climate change debate has components based on models and their predictions.
All models are wrong but some are very useful e.g. Newton's gravity approach works really well until we get to Mercury, very useful still for our communications, science etc. although GPS needs a bit of Einstein's relativity.
The climate is a very complicated entity that is historically essentially impossible to model to the accuracy that one would like - gave birth to aspects of Chaos Theory. The challenge of a deterministic universe versus non-deterministic.
Assumption basis of models is important as are the actual mechanisms modelled.
Accurate climate data for input into models can be challenge to obtain over the time frames that are desired. Leads to assumptions of extrapolation and interpretation that often occur when this arises.
All of this contributes to the debate, the emotion and the science & pseudo science.
Finally, climate change skeptic does not equate to an environmental ravager, to link the two goes to the emotional and political rather than the rational and as a result you get exploitation by both sides of the debate with no chance of sensible resolution.

P.S. What climate change or the views of the Christian right (or any other group) has to do with Astronomy I do not know - back to lurk for the astronomy posts.
P.P.S. Encourage everyone to take care of their environment, it is the sensible thing to do.

[White Rabbit]

I find it incredible that this debate still rages on.

Forget global warming, it's sideshow and a distraction. We need to find alternate fuel/energy sources other than the carbon based ones we use now.

Fact, they will run out and soon.
Fact, there will be energy wars when it does, unless we have an alternative up and running. We saw the start of the energy wars with the invastion of Iraq.
Fact, if we dont fine an alternative we will kill ourselves much quicker than the earth will.
Fact, we dont need to worry about the climate. The climate will look after itself, it's us we need to look out for. Even if we bugger the climate to the point that it can no longer sustain us, we simply die out. The earth will rebound over a couple of million years and the life cycle will start all over again, with out us. It's done this many many times before.

we can argue and argue and argue, but it's pointless. We have far more to loose if we are correct about the human impact, and everything to gain if are wrong. It's a win win for us if we stop polouting the earth.

[PeterM]

Claude,

Firstly I disagree with your comment "majority of respected scientists" perhaps you can enlighten me with names, or at the very least majority really needs to be qualified, that would seem logical to me.
You are pleased I am "in the minority" but again don't qualify, if you mean by the replies to this thread, yeah that might be correct, or do you mean globally - now just how do you arrive at that assumption?

You use the words "human existence wiped out" these should not be taken lightly - they are typically one of the very powerful, emotional, very unscientific dramatisations often used to promote the extreme exaggerations made by the GW alarmists in this whole debate. You use emotion (don't worry you are not alone, that and insult are about the only means available to many GW alarmists when they can't produce the evidence) and then in the same paragraph you say I need to learn something about the scientific method......er, ok.

The words "likely" "more likely" "possibly" "expected" inferred" "may" are clearly shown to be a guess (no science here) used as qualifiers for massive uncertainties. They will most likely be used as a convenient escape hatch for those who try to cover there backsides as the whole GW nonsense unravels.

Of course if you can point me to the solid evidence (peer reviewed of course) for sea level change, how temperature continually rises with increasing CO2, evidence that glaciers are melting, then please do. It amazes me that many "people in the know" don't realise they actually breathe CO2 out and that it is crucial for life on Earth. Perhaps they don't believe we went to the Moon and stocked up during Y2K (just in case). It is also interesting that the GWers have now changed their tune from their "Global Warming" alarmism to "Man made Climate Change" . Climate Change I can handle, it is ongoing and has happened for billions of years, but man made, point me to the evidence please. I guess the name change was necessary because since 1998 it appears the Earth has actually been cooling so it makes the original argument somewhat lame.

I wonder also how reliable are the computer models used when as it seems they don't include major drivers of climate like the Sun, Cloud formation, Submarine volcanism and the CO2 chemistry of rocks, soil, oceans and biology.

Plimers book Heaven and Earth is not written emotionally it is written scientifically and very much to the facts, it is well worth reading. Have you read it? if not please do, you will be far more scientifically informed for it - use it as a crash course if you like on the what the scientific method is and how it shows this nonsense for what it really is.

It appears that soon Australians will have to dig very, very deep into their own pockets (yet another tax). When this happens I will bet (very unscientific) there will be an almost overnight change of opinion. Unless of course the GWers can fudge the figures and bring the looming disaster forward so it looks like it will affect Mr & Mrs averages life(style) in their lifetime, Y2K worked with a date. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, as they say money changes everything, even the "I want a better world for my granchildren type", yeah right, heard that before, they leave out the bit about so long as I don't have to pay for it . Anyway it appears most adults are going to plough through any kids inheritance so most don't really give a toss.

Anyways this subject is exactly like religion, politics etc nobody here will sway anyone else in their beliefs. But I do and will continue to take exception when people start calling people who have valid opposing views as jokers, and others who use more emotional names etc as have appeared in other threads on this subject.
I think they only know how to play the man and not the ball.
I like Plimers thoughts in this book comparing the mind to a parachute, it only works when open.
PeterM.

[Esseth]

True, science is based upon people being sceptical. Quite often when there is a debate or discussion when I mention that I am not 100% sold on the idea of man-made global warming for my own reasons I get looked at like I was Hitler and stupid, when all they have done on the topic is read whatever the newspaper tells them and that they had watched An Inconvenient Truth.
I am open to either way of thinking, man-made, natural or no global warming. Too many people make up their mind about what is truth (either side of the debate) and then become zealots who ridicule and harass anyone that doesn’t follow.

And to your second point, I could not agree more, the argument is really nullified because the end result (less emissions and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels) is a good one.



We will run out one day, but what is the more urgent nature of your argument is that we will exceed sustainable peak supply. Meaning that humans will need more fossil fuels for everything that we use, that can be extracted from it and once demand exceeds supply we are in a tad of trouble.