I havn't seen the Al Gore movie, but I've heard a lot of talk about it. I heard a good point of view from a scientist recently who is of the opinion that global warming is a natural cycle, human activity is only a small part of it. Put basically, every ten thousand years or so there is an ice age on this planet. If you take some meat out of your freezer, it thaws out slowly while it is cold then speeds up through the later stages when it is warmer. The same thing is happening naturally to the earth. We have slowly been thawing out of the last ice age and we are now on that faster warming up period, the earth is returning to it's natural temperature. It has been established that the other planets in our solar system are also warming with us. Natural sources of warming such as solar activity, volcanic both surface and submarine, and some other factors, all speed up the process. Al Gore has made this movie, but apparently refuses to go into live debate with scientists, so what real credibility does the movie hold. Yes we are warming up, and the planet is changing, but it has done so before and will again. On the other hand, humans must clean up our act. We can't go on wiping out nature, demolishing forest etc. Once it's gone, so are we. I'm still in two minds but I tend to think mother nature is trying to tell us something, most of us are listening, but we have to convince those who are motivated by power and greed that enough is enough. Have a nice day.
Problem!
My nest is nearly full!
Answer
It is OK since one in a thousand scientists says there is nothing to worry about!
I just died!
You seem very coherent for a dead person. I assume that this is a deliberate oversimplication, not part of AGW hysteria. Climate is a complex system and nothing is straightforward. If you had believed what some are saying about feedback loops in the early modelling, we should all be suffering over 6-7 degree temperature increases, not 0.7 degree at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
Thats OK it does not even register on how much profit we made!
You can all deny t'ill you die, WE are stuffing our life support system. You can can call me greenie, but you will get the world you deserve.
The world looks pretty good to me. The life support system is still working and will continue to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
When I was ten years old I used to swim with platipi and thought at the time it was normal!
I would assume that platypi normally avoid humans. This does not sound normal to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
My roof still has about a dozen possums and they revel in what my garden has to offer.
I hope you sleep well at night with all those possums in your roof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
Deny all you like or prefer. It will not change a damn thing!
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
You are all like the frog in the pot slowly heating, he will stay there until the water boils!
No. A frog will remove itself from a slowly heating pot when the temperature get intolerably hot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
We must have bigger and better freeways until we cover the planet!
Freeways cover only a small percentage of land, about 1.4% using UK data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
You are all fools if you think that human induced global warming is a plot.
bert
Not a plot, just unproven Bert. The temperature increases so far observed may easily be part of a natural rythym. If they are not I am very confident that our society will adapt and survive. No, prosper in fact.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics...
While some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social problems, eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_C...e/Skeptics.asp
To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer.
[QUOTE=glenc;201151 To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. [/QUOTE]
So does this mean you have disconnected from the grid and sold the pug, Glen?
The behaviour of fire is well known. The behaviour of the climate is not.
"The scientific data is clear that global temperatures are rising. Although the amount of increase is probably within the range of natural variability for the last thousand years, the rate of increase is faster than at any other time during that period. Some of the increase may be due to a natural warming trend, although most of the increase is probably due to human influence."
probably? The case is not inconclusive. A lot of the graphs shown on this site are *too* perfect in their correlations. Real science is far messier and uncertain than that. Irrespective of this, it doesn't persuade me to join the religion, thank you.
Especially with Suzuki as a high priest, Glen. He may have been a good fruit fly geneticist in his day, but that was a long time ago. He is now a political activist.
To me it is nonsense to say we are not having an effect on the climate, where is all this pollution going if not into the atmosphere?.
If we have had global warming before that was before we had six billion people and a couple of billion vehicles and a billion cows and other pollution coursing things to add to the mix.
The Volcano's and forestry burning and clearing are just adding to the problem.
To the doubters what do you suggest we do? is all this stuff we read about and see on our television just a mirage?
I for one would like us to try to cut out pollution even if it is not coursing global warming.
As an astronomer for the last twenty years I believe the darkness of the sky
as decreased not only by light pollution but by aerosols in the atmosphere from all the vehicles and other polluting influences which reflect light over a greater area, just take Duckadang for example, when we went there in 1993 it was so dark that you needed a red torch to move about, now you walk around without needing a torch.
Just my two cents worth.
What is a PUG?
ArgoNavis if you bought a pug (or similar) it would help! My car can tow your trailer and your telescope. I will look after it for you if you like. There are two easy ways to reduce global warming, one is to buy a smaller car (5 - 7 L/100 km) and the other is to get a solar HWS. Also we will be able to buy grid solar for the same price as mains power soon. We can do something and save money! Why not?
You can disagree with David Suzuki but it is hard to disagree with:
"Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced."
Glen I agree with so much of your approach as to what can be done however I feel one must be suspicious of any one who states …
"Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced."
I question if the authors report is upon “the facts” then perhaps a break up of whose investigations come down on the side “that it is a natural climate change and it is happening” and/or “is it concluded that humans are responsible”. Or does the 928 selected authors all say it is human induced? I suggest a break up of the issues and some numbers could be an impartial manner in which to present their conclusion. I feel grouping two issues such as they did destroys their impartiality of presentation of the issues…of which there be two not one.
Such a distinction is important when considering what firstly can be done and secondly should be done. I, maybe foolishly, see a plot clearly that certain interests are happy capitalise and introduce the answer that it is humans fault simply so they can provide the solution to a human induced problem. The inference being that if human induced then our goods and services will fix it... for this reason the distinction is vital. This does not mean I say ignore the problem but to address the real problem which is...it will be hotter. The relevance of if human induced comes in to see who is selling what.
From this point one can assume fairy that if the change is natural but human assisted there is little by way of a change in human behaviour that can prevent the hotter future. However by placing all the blame at the feet of humans, profit seeking humans step forward with solutions whereas I doubt if any action by humans can challenge the natural climate change even if the change is being hastened by human pollution. There is no will to do so ..the only evidence of any will is by the nuclear power lobby… save the Great Barrier Reef..go nuclear.. how transparent.. and one can make a boring list of examples of this nature.
So in that context there is a plot and it is unfortunate that emotions run so high on this issue that “the plot” can not be fairly assessed and the real issue of a hotter future be prepared for.
I find it curious that when Dr Suzuki is in town so is the nuclear power lobby. That smacks of politics not science irrespective if he is a pawn or a player.
A fine point but it comes down to facing the inevitable and preparing for it or believing that by changing human behaviour the problem will go away. I personally can not see it being fixed by a new approach to fuel used and I doubt if the problem will go away by changing from coal to nuclear fuel.
I doubt if humans can change their behaviour. Whilst that issue is being argued the climate appears to be getting hotter. The question should be considered... what can humans do to adapt to the new future... Installing nuclear power seems to be the flavour we get from all saying humans are at fault. One must see the problem as... it is coming, and it is somewhat irrelevant if humans are at fault or not (… humans won’t change until they are forced to but this does not mean we need fall for emotive crap clearly designed to confuse an important issue so goods and services can be sold.
And it is very good that we at least talk about the problems we each see in this area for if nothing else we each are attempting to bring about some change that may help in dealing with such an important issue. Just don’t get carried away by the sales hype from whatever quarter.
I ask how serious is our Government when so many simple things can be done to reduce energy consumption.. hot water is something that can be highly subsidised by Solar yet serious attempts to get it installed everywhere are minimal..
Our PM did not say global warming is upon us so let’s get the hot water heaters solar subsidised..or lets fund research for electric cars or follow up on many other valid options to consider.. no straight to consider nuclear and a labelling of any other solutions as “not real”… does that not suggest something? however he saw only nuclear as a solution.. I saw only a vested interest plot to capitalise on a good and wide add campaign to frighten kids and bamboozle adults.. And look at the many proposed tax solutions in the wings..tax it! that will fix it..mmm even the Government is capitalising on the sky is falling routine. I don’t deny there is a problem but much of the problem is the vested interests selling solutions to a problem humans will not, or can not fix… certainly not by nuclear power or higher taxes to curb green house gasses.
Alex
The following is attributed to author Lorne Gunter in Canada:
As to Suzuki he made a joke of himself recently on a cross Canada speaking tour using a diesel bus suited for 40 and riding with 8. He also has bad manners and has walked out when commentators queried him about GW. If he saw a glimmer that it is not us, he stormed out.
**********************
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
I think there is a case for all sides and this is the wonderful thing about humanity ...being positive and hopeful often produces a happy and positive outcome … all the publicity will bring about some although possibly too little response and at a ground roots level I for one having investigated my energy needs in Sydney am finding by changing a few things I will save money … and money motivates even me . It seems odd that we don’t personally take advantage of all the energy saving approaches because energy saved is finally more money in our pocket ...more money to buy astronomy gear .
Looking into going solar in Sydney was never a matter of saving the planet for me it was "if it costs me nothing at home for power would that not be nice to have in Sydney?" .
I guess I am just a grey green capitalistic socialist who wants to save money or simply put human .
alex
Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-few-decades/
Yep I made this name up in 1976 for the name of my first attempt at my own business.
It goes like this:
I have three sons so it is:
Timothy is the ti
Robert is the ro
Christopher is the ch
So I created my 'original' business name. Not so as per the following.
When I got on the Net 10 years ago this past January and awhile later I decide to search the origin, if any, of Tiroch.
Well it turned out to be an obscure name from a village in Hungary and also to me an uncommon name in Austria. Actually I was in an EM dialog with a gal in Austria having the name Christine Tiroch. She was to ask here uncle the name source and get back to me. She never did.
In case any my have an interest this site is places named USA:
Tiroch was there some long time ago but is not now.
Real Climate.org is a well known GW is us site. It maybe the short term Mars stuff is as inadequate as any here on Earth for declaring we the guilty. Fair game on that.
I see you love Real Climate site which I wrote is a known GW is us site.
As in any politicized matter it is who that has the biggest bucks that wins and governments have by far the biggest bucks (ours) and media run with the flavour of the 'month'. Both have declared us the Guilty Party and as such any that denies this is branded akin to a heretic. Reminds of the Inquisition.
To dispute, or more rightly ignore, the Solar System elements are not warming is amazing. I asked are they or not?
Too much of the GW writing displays a complete ignorance of Earth Climate History.
Yes it is warming. Yes we are guilty to making the warming come faster by a wee bit. No we can't stop it. Yes we will spend trillions on a fruitless endeavour while ignoring real problems. Yes the normal condition of Earth is much warmer than now. No we cannot stop the following Ice Age.
I would rather read science sites like Real Climate than opinion and propaganda sites. The US and Australian governments and the big media players used to side with the skeptics. Rupert Murdoch recently changed course. Bush and Howard tell us they are no longer skeptics.
Are we causing GW, or is it a natural cycle.
… and money motivates even me
