An incnvenient truth - a global warning

[Tiroch]

Ric,

Mother Nature is the source.

And I refer you as I have done to many to a National Geographic issue on Global Warming dated Sept. 2004 and many other sources - as in oceans and etc.

The carbon cycle is complex and involves oceans, forests, land, people animals and so on. Not simple at all.

[Tiroch]

Ric,

If we did not have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we would all freeze to death. We need a greenhouse. It is a life giving gas that is being abused by ignorant people wanting to blame the warm on us.

To tamper with Mother Nature on that could lead to us being suffocated.

Mirrors in space to reflect the Sun? Injecting dust into space to reflect the Sun heat?

My Gawd!

Better to spend the trillions of carbon credits on solving the real issues of pollution, famine, bad water and so on. At least the affected people would have a life instead of a bad life.

So what's wrong with this picture?

[Ric]

Agreed Tiroch it is a very complex process and involves many factors as you say and agreed that CO2 is required to keep the planet warm and all life alive in the fragile system.

The problem is then that humankind is upsetting this balance by polluting the oceans, removing rain forrests at a ridiculous rate and pumping excessive pollution into the atmosphere and probably a lot more thing I have forgot to mention. Even if our contribution is only 3-4% then it is obviously the straw that is breaking the camel's back as it were.

It therefore stands to reason that we need to do as much as we can now to ensure a future and let the earth return to it's natural balance.
Solar is a good start, if we had done it 30 years ago we wouldnt be in this mess to start with.

Cheers

[glenc (Glen)]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hange_skeptics


How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

[Ric]

Very interesting links Glen, it took a bit of reading but it was worth it.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

If it was not for the debate on climate change having been hijacked by political groups, the debate could be fairly resolved. However that is not the case. Political groups direct virtually all research money to the groups and individuals that support the lib-left position that humans are the guilty party and have worked hard to cast deniers as the bad people in this.

I've read hundreds of pages from both sides over the past 20 years and having a background in Earth Sciences re geology I've concluded the debate has no means to be resolved fairly due to massive political interference.

To equate the warming to humans having injected carbon dioxide to some mysterious tipping point is to credit humans with an ability that exceeds that of Mother Nature to do the same thing. That is impossible. None of the arguments to achieve that can be considered anything more than speculation based on computer modeling, in the main, using inputs derived from false sources such as land based temperature readings that are contaminated by urban heat sinks while at the same time ignoring satellite temperature readings that show next to zero increase (at least for the last 20 years which is the time line of the warming issue).

The money being wasted on trying to stop Mother Nature is shameful while at the same time doing hardly anything (by comparison) to correct air pollution, water contamination, deforestation, famines, slavery, wars and so on.

We are being led down a false path for purely political reasons. The reality of this issue is that it is confined to industrialized northern nations that are the power house of wealth generation, medical research and technological advances and thus most of the wealth of the world. Within this area most governments are lib-left or have conservative governments that bend to the ideas of the lib-left just enough to retain power.

The lib-left have always blamed industrial activity for the ills of the world while at the same time enjoying the benefits this has created. I have never been able to come to grips with this contradiction.

The blame humans for global warming is a direct result of this warped view.

And that has led to a subversion of the issue which has led to a false conclusion.

If a true conclusion could be made, we could then spend our resources on efforts to cope with the warming rather than waste these on an unstoppable.

[glenc (Glen)]

The temperature in Greenland is rising by 0.3 C to 0.7 C per decade according to satellite data. http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg. More Arctic ice is melting in summer, the sea is reflecting less sunlight and getting warmer. How long will it be until Greenland's icecap starts melting fast? The temperature in some places is rising by 0.7C to 0.9C per decade. That could mean 9C per century in northern Canada, parts of Norway and Sweden. Over the last 400,000 years Antarctic temperatures have varied by about 12C. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF..._400k_yrs.html

[Tiroch]

To glenc,

Have a go at this:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool10.htm

Please note trend analyses are meaningless. One needs to use this:

Again, this only shows the inadequacy of using trend lines with climate data. Climate is a chaotic system, subject to unpredictable changes. For climate data, trend lines are useless. Gaussian or other similar averaging is the only thing that will allow us to understand the data. In addition, it is necessary to have long term records to have any chance of understanding what is happening.

[merlin8r]

Let's assume for a minute that global warming isn't happening, that climate change is just a tool for someone to launch a political career.....

Why risk it? Why NOT just take a few simple measures to reduce emissions? Because it's too hard? Remember when all aerosol cans contained CFC's for propelant? It's not like living a little cleaner will have a massive impact on our day to day lives. 50 feet of water over my house will though, and I'm not prepared to take that risk.

[casstony]

Tiroch, I see you have a professional qualification - you could probably earn a few dollars from the fossil fuel industry with your views on global warming. I bet coal companies pay way better than green organisations too.

With the information and disinformation circulating it's pretty hard to reach a definite conclusion, but if the majority of scientists in the field think there is a problem isn't it woth guarding against the risks?

[Ric]

Hi Tony, not all us Geologists think that way. I used to work in the mining industry and it always worried me how thing were done.
And there is no way I would ever work in Uranium exploration.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

My Dear casstony,

To elaborate I've been a professional engineer in mining since '59.

I worked at uranium mills in the early '60's as a mill engineer.

Now I am my own man (17 years). I work selling mining stuff to Russia. So I earn good dollars selling coal process equipment to Russians. Try that if you can as most never get past go.

My views have zip to do with my selling to coal producers as it relates to global warming.

I have zero interest in earning any dollars from this topic. I'm only interested in bringing clarity to the issue and to defeat the one sided aspect that prevails which is we mere humans are more powerful than Mother Nature and the Sun. That is just plain ridiculous.

My short essay earlier today was to bring clarity and reality to this issue and it was about disinformation.

As to the majority of scientists it is that enough has been written about these types doing such for the sake of dollars.
*********************

And merlin8r that is correct. Reduce emissions but these are for our own good. Clean air - yes why ever not. Clean water - yes why ever not and so on.

[casstony]

Tiroch, to imply that we don't have major impacts on our planet is simply ridiculous. A few decades ago my uncle was responsible for clearing thousands of acres of forest/scrub in WA, destroying habitat and eventually rendering the land infertile. Many others around the world are doing the same. There is a limit to how much damage we can do before mother nature damages us. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope that the dire predictions are wrong, or we can play it safe and act in a manner that we think will preserve our atmosphere.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by casstony

With the information and disinformation circulating it's pretty hard to reach a definite conclusion, but if the majority of scientists in the field think there is a problem isn't it woth guarding against the risks?

Scientists are just as capable of getting it wrong as anyone else. Maybe more so, as making sense of a lot of climate data is not easy. Witness Mann's "hockey stick" graph.

Many scientists are being asked to subscribe to the GW idea even though it is out of their field of expertise, and some are making themselves into media tarts.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by merlin8r

Why risk it? Why NOT just take a few simple measures to reduce emissions? Because it's too hard? Remember when all aerosol cans contained CFC's for propelant? It's not like living a little cleaner will have a massive impact on our day to day lives. 50 feet of water over my house will though, and I'm not prepared to take that risk.

Do you really think that repacing a few incandescent light bulbs with long life ones, or using public transport, will seriously move the 380ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere down to a pre-industrial 280ppm?

All power stations would have to go. Do you realise what this would do?

And then you will have to deal with the CO2 the remaining humans (those left after starvation and lack of modern public health and medical facilities) will be exhaling.

Even leaving the current level of emissions (which will involve significantly more efficient technology to deal with increases in population and rising living standards in India and China and elsewhere) you will still be increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

How are you going to get the CO2 back down?

As Lomberg points out, the cost of Kyoto could pay for uncontaminated drinking water for the entire world.

*If* climate change is happening (and history tells us that the climate does change over time) then there not not much humans can do about it.

However, what I suspect we are seeing is the operation of natural cycles, and a lot of hysterical people.

[Argonavis (William)]

Even more hysteria:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../#commentsmore

[Ric]

I may not be that bright as to understand every chart and statistic that is presented to me, but I do remember everyone putting down the hole in the ozone as greeny rubbish and propaganda, so why did they ban CFC's if it was a lot of rubbish?
I shall continue with my permaculture and recycling regardless of what people say and eventually leave this planet happy in the fact that I did my bit to help.
In the meantime I shall plant some more tree's this weekend at the farm.

Cheers

[matt]

Good for you, Ric.

If it's a choice between polluting or not, I think I'll take the same option as you.

I too am unconvinced either way on the GW issue, but my attitude is until we know one way or the other, how bad can a little preventative action be?

[mick pinner]

a large percentage of people in the affluent west want their nice cars, heated houses, effective public transport, trains planes etc, and all this comes at a cost.
to believe that anything of any significance can be done to reverse the state of the climate and the planet on a whole is a pipe dream.
l don't like it any more than anyone else but the planet is run by economics not environmental considerations.
in my opinion we are past the point of no return, we have larger issues to concern us anyway, peak oil has been reached already, just wait and see what massive ramifications this has in the next 10-20 years, it will make climate change and pollution look positively insignificant.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

However, what I suspect we are seeing is the operation of natural cycles, and a lot of hysterical people.

Well if caring for the future of this planet and being able to point out the infallibility of mankind's treatment of our atmosphere makes myself and many, many others hysterical so be it

Sorry but I just I dont believe neo-conservative, money first pollies and a few mavrick scientists funded by the fossil fuel lobby.