Thread: I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH

Originally Posted by China

Do your research, don't listen to the polies and you will discover that Global Warming simply does not exist

he he, So now China and the West are on the same page!

P

Originally Posted by Studley 2436

Actually you can kill that one pretty fast.

Jug of water put a stack of ice cubes in it. Mark the level. Let the ice cubes melt. Level will be the same, because water expands as it freezes.

So the level might rise a little if the world warms and glaciers etc melt though I doubt it will be much. Ice caps melting will make no difference at all.

We are talking about a centimetre or two

Studley

Really?

A layer of ice up to two miles thick covers a continent as big as the United States and Mexico combined. Antarctic ice contains 70% of the world's fresh water (90% of the world's ice). If it were divided up, every person on Earth could have a chunk of ice larger than the Great Pyramid. Although 98% of Antarctica is ice, there is land underneath the ice cover, unlike the Arctic where the ice floats on top of the ocean.

http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html

We shouldn't believe anything about Global Warming because the politicians told us. Those blighters have been denying anything to do with the environment since forever. The only reason they are hopping on the bandwagon now is that they realise most of their voters are already riding on it.

woodbe.

Actually remember Richo's 1987 environment election? Won it for Labor on green preferences?

Politicians have never denied anything they could jump on and use for their own advantage.

So far as I can find there is global warming but it is to do with outside factors rather than a bit of CO2. The world has been here since when and it has warmed and cooled since time immemorial. We are only talking a few degrees change to the average tempreture between an ice age and warm periods.

It will happen and it will be nothing to do with mankinds actions. It would have happened anyway. The only worthwhile question is how can we manage to cope with it. We won't stop it, the sun is just going on putting out it's immense output and has it's hotter and cooler spells and will continue to do so until it goes Super Nova and turns Earth into a handfull of ash.

Sea level increases of 7 or 8 metres are just a headline figure. It is only there to get a headline and push the cause. The sea rising tempreture rising and rainfall decreasing? Oh yes the landmass will be sucked dry of any moisture that is there. Yeah right just think about that.

Suppose you sink most of the landmass under water. Much greater surface to the oceans, higher tempretures but less moisture in the air? Global warming must be doing something really funny to the composition of water.

The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.

It makes for bad policy and bad government. No one has taken time to consider what to do and how to manage the change. Too busy coming up with a more serious disaster.

Actually it reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer we used to have. That one was dodgy science too. You go down wind of a volcano (Mt Erebus) that spews thousands of tons of chlorine into the atmosphere and take a reading there. Well of course there is a thin spot there. Take a look at where you are. Actually there was part of that arguement that blamed cars for that as well. It's the CO2 from car exhausts that get's way up high and destroys the O3 or ozone layer that filters UV light. Car's of course being such monsters also put out a lot of O3 but that just hangs around cities making smog. That was the lecture I got at University 5 or 10 times from the lecture theatre!

Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style.

Much like those environmental campaigns of the past.

Studley

So far as I can find there is global warming but it is to do with outside factors rather than a bit of CO2.

A bit? CO2 is a proven green house gas.

The world has been here since when and it has warmed and cooled since time immemorial. We are only talking a few degrees change to the average tempreture between an ice age and warm periods.

Yes quite so. It is just happening faster than ever. You should have a look at the Crude documentary. It's available from www.abc.net.au

It will happen and it will be nothing to do with mankinds actions. It would have happened anyway. The only worthwhile question is how can we manage to cope with it. We won't stop it, the sun is just going on putting out it's immense output and has it's hotter and cooler spells and will continue to do so until it goes Super Nova and turns Earth into a handfull of ash.

See the ABC doco on Crude.

The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.

Read this article from New Scientist.

Originally Posted by New Scientist

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

Suppose you sink most of the landmass under water. Much greater surface to the oceans, higher tempretures but less moisture in the air? Global warming must be doing something really funny to the composition of water.

You will find if you actually do a bit of research that there will be more rainfall than currently. The tropics will expand south and north. The deserts that are currently on both sides of the equator will move north and south. This means that SE Australia will be desert where it was once temperate.


You really, really should read that New Scientist article I posted earlier as well as the Crude documentary.

Global Warming is real and it is man made.

I don't know why I waste my time But being a research scientist in organic chemistry in a past life I guess I just hate it when I see people peddling misinformation. People who listen to other people with no clue, who come up with ridiculous simple (incorrect)analogies to explain why their untenable views are correct and the majority of science is incorrect. Studley, have you been reading the pseudoscience of Ken Ring? I don't really know where to start but I've added a few notes below to get started and along with people like Gumby perhaps we can convince you this is real and man-made??

quote=Studley 2436;525341
The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.
The industrial revolution began in mid 18th century, not 1890. The earth may well have cooled during the post war period due to man made particulate matter in the air. In fact an Australian scientist has determined that although the temperatures are increasing, evaporation of water is decreasing due to particulate matter in the atmosphere leading to less photons reaching water, and it is the level of light that is the primary driver of evaporation, not heat as you might expect.(So I figure driving a deisel is doing a good turn for the earth )


Actually it reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer we used to have. That one was dodgy science too. You go down wind of a volcano (Mt Erebus) that spews thousands of tons of chlorine into the atmosphere and take a reading there. Well of course there is a thin spot there.
That wasn't dodgy science, CFC's have been detected in the stratosphere. It is CFC's that catalyse the destruction of ozone, or rather a chlorine radical that derives from CFC's. CFC's are man-made and did not exist in nature before we made them. Molecular chlorine such as may be released from a volcano is stable and cannot be converted into the chlorine radical under the conditions that exist in the stratosphere.

Take a look at where you are. Actually there was part of that arguement that blamed cars for that as well. It's the CO2 from car exhausts that get's way up high and destroys the O3 or ozone layer that filters UV light. now that is dodgy science, CO2 doesn't destroy ozone
Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style.
Who are the elite you speak of??
Much like those environmental campaigns of the past.


Cheers
Michael

The simple reality is that just because you don't want Global Warming to be true, it's not going to lie down and go away.

On top of that there are powerful people and corporations on both sides who have a lot to gain by influencing opinion one way or another.

It all just muddies the water. I'm not surprised people like Studly don't believe it.

Tom Sawyer was right on the money when he said : "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"

woodbe.

Fair go Michael, give poor old Studley a break. I think he must have been smoking something really weird to come up with that much mis guided nonsense and actually think it is beleivable.

Studley most of what you have written makes no sense at all it is nothing but a series of half baked facts drawn together in an appallingly simplistic way that does no credit to the naysayer arguement at all. The ozone arguement is one in which no one is in dispute except the lunatic fringe and should not have been included. The evidence on green house gas has become pretty overwhelming especially since the early 1990's and this sort of discussion takes us no where.

Better house design capturing the Northerly aspect (Southern for those the other side of the equator) and decent insulation provides us with far more liveable homes. Lower power consumption as a result gives us smaller energy bills and more cash to spend on other things. Renewable energy means less waste material and fewer holes in the ground. It also means for those downwind of a coal fired power station that we end up with cleaner air and less asthma and other respitory disease if we can clean up emissions. Developing the technology is a win for those countries that embrace change. Change is what drives economic development and provides jobs. For those that want things to stay as they are go back to flat earth theory for you have no value in a developing world.

Developing sustainable lifestyles is the way of the future we cannot keep mining the earths resources at the current rate, and in time recycling will become a massive industry that exceeds that of mining but none of us are likely to be alive to see that. Ever since the dawn of man we have experienced change and now the pace of change is very fast. The climate change sceptics are largely those incapable of expanding their minds to the idea that intelligent change can have far reaching benefits and lead to an improvement for all, and its about time we stopped this bickering over the cause of change and started to focus on what type of change can help us all.

It has been argued that changes to housing codes in Oz would make housing unaffordable. Well look around you at the massive spiral in housing prices, the arguement was a crock of cow poo we have unaffordable houses that are also inefficient. Houses in the U.S. have far better effeciency ratings than our own and it hasn't killed their building industry, but it does mean they consume less energy per capita than we do. A lot of the economic arguement by our Government is a sign of our leaders lacking the will to move forward with decent policy, and being unable to grasp the concept that change is inevitable. For the last few years our leadership has stagnated on economic policy as being the main driver of the country, but that is not enough they also have to provide vision and direction and if you look closely you will see very little of that.

When are we going to start looking at addressing climate change as a positive rather than a negative,.

John.

I dunno about the global warming thing (Not anything I am going to say here anyway), but I do have a question.

Can it cause heavy electrical storms?

Because we just went through a pretty big one last night, and I don't know why.

I love big storms, and this one scared the absolute cr@p out of even me. All 6+ hours of it.

Maybe it's being able to see clearly outside at night due to lightning strikes rather than moonlight that did it?

Maybe having the house shake like it was hit by a bus several times?

I'd love to know what the strike count was for around here, must have been well into the thousands...

Edit:Just found out. 25,000 today, and today was quiet...

If making the earth warmer causes more lightning, then we are all pretty much fouled up I think if last night was just a taste.

mmmmmm Global warming theorist only manage to get their theories to work by ignoring the influence of the sun on Earth's climate!

Who is going to get the hockey stick out first?

Studley

Originally Posted by johnc

Houses in the U.S. have far better effeciency ratings than our own and it hasn't killed their building industry, but it does mean they consume less energy per capita than we do.

Figure 1.24a. Unit consumption of electricity by households (OECD)



Source: World Energy Council. http://www.worldenergy.org/

Houses in the US are more energy efficient than ours because of their winter climate. Unfortunately, that colder weather and the mindset of the occupants results in higher consumption.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by Grunt

A bit? CO2 is a proven green house gas.







Global Warming is real and it is man made.

Sheeze in 10 years your figures say we have gone from 355 to 371 parts per million! Being generous to you that is 3.5% to 3.7% if the figures are any good at all which I can't say not being a scientist committed to that field.

Sorry Global warming happened long before mans activity could be anything to do with it. Going into CO2 levels of the past few thousand years it appears more likely that it was a trailing factor. Tempreture rose and so CO2 rose.

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley

quote=Studley 2436;525496Sheeze in 10 years your figures say we have gone from 355 to 371 parts per million! Being generous to you that is 3.5% to 3.7% if the figures are any good at all which I can't say not being a scientist committed to that field.
So you can say that global warming is not man-made because...??? Either you understand the meaning of these numbers to make your claims or you don't

Sorry Global warming happened long before mans activity could be anything to do with it. Going into CO2 levels of the past few thousand years it appears more likely that it was a trailing factor. Tempreture rose and so CO2 rose.
Where is the evidence, show us the money!

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley[/quote]

"Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style."
Studley
SAID IT ALL !!

Originally Posted by mic-d

less photons reaching water, and it is the level of light that is the primary driver of evaporation, not heat as you might expect.l

I thought a photon was a packet of energy (heat), least that is what Einstein et al thought when trying to explain the dual nature (wave/particle) of light