Thread: I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH

White with two please Cliff.

Grunt you should read my post above. Science is far from agreed on this.

Global warming is real but has been happening since well before the industrial revolution.

The only way people who make predictions such as yours have been able to get their models to work is to be very selective about what data they put in. Events such as the "little ice age" and the "Medieval Warming" are ignored.

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick model that "proved" man as being the cause of global warming has been totally discredited by the scientific community, again rebutting your notion that 90% of scientists believe Global Warming is man made. They don't. More and more it appears to be a very noisy minority

Studley

Global warming is real but has been happening since well before the industrial revolution.

Crap.

The only way people who make predictions such as yours have been able to get their models to work is to be very selective about what data they put in. Events such as the "little ice age" and the "Medieval Warming" are ignored.

New Scientist

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick model that "proved" man as being the cause of global warming has been totally discredited by the scientific community, again rebutting your notion that 90% of scientists believe Global Warming is man made. They don't. More and more it appears to be a very noisy minority

Bull. Read this.

HTF does this scheme work?

My understanding of this is that the idea is to put a price on carbon production so that it makes alternatives seem more economical. In other words, by forcing carbon producers to pay for the carbon they produce, it becomes a cost of production that might offset the expense of going to new cleaner technology. To reduce costs (of carbon producing technology) they will be forced to either develop cleaner production methods that produce less carbon, or to switch to some other technology. Remains to be seen if it will work but in the short term, it will make manufacturing and energy production more expensive, so it is you and I who will be paying for it.

Alan Wood amongst others debunked Mann's Hockey Stick. Wood being an economist found glaring holes in it's method. He found that the graph proved nothing more than the authors ability to draw a line to suit his own preconceived ideas.

Studley

Note the disclaimer at the top of that graph:

"Reconstuctions of Northern Hemisphere temperature vary but all suggest its warmer now than at any time in the past 1000 years"

So here is the graph that varies the most to achieve the result I want.

Oh by the way all the other variants have been dissmissed beacause they don't "suggest" as good as this one.

I will not agree untill some one cuts out the BS with these disclaimers in their information that leave it open to interpretation and or a back peddle if needed.

They are all guessing in my opinion and showing us worst case scenarios to add fuel to the fire.

This sort of misinformation is read as gospel by those who choose to believe it. So sad so very very sad.

BTW how can an ice age be blamed on Global Warming ??

Good graph, how they they take temperature measurements in the year 1000?

Al

But still the point is, are you really happy to be leaving behind a pile of s$%t for you children's children? Our current (western) prosperity is based on oil producing cheap materials for us to consume. Although the debate about when oil will run out is as heated as the debate on global warming, everyone agrees it is a finite source, ie more oil cannot be produced to replace the oil we're using. Therefore, our current lifestyles are not sustainable - we use up huge amounts of irreplaceable resources which will not be available for our children and we turn it into huge amounts of waste which will sit around for hundreds of years. Our children will not have these natural resources, as at some point they will run out, and they will have to deal with huge amounts of waste sitting around getting in the way.

Surely anything we can do to make our lifestyle more sustainable is a good thing? If a carbon tax / carbon trading scheme makes products more expensive, and everybody uses them less, so we consume less natural resources and produce less waste, isn't that a good thing?

Here's an easy example, ignoring the fact that McD's is c#$p served up as food. Say you go into McDs and buy a coffee and they give you a plastic spoon to stir it with. McDs have chosen to give you a plastic spoon cos its cheaper than the alternatives. If a carbon tax means that the plastic spoon becomes more expensive than a wooden stirrer (which I'm going to assume is produced from sustainable plantations - if you want to start that one, we'll need a new thread!) then we are consuming a lot less oil to produce plastic spoons which are used to stir one cup of coffee and then thrown into landfill. In an ideal world, McDs would start using metal spoons and washing them, as that reduces the oil used in transporting any sort of spoon from where its made to the restaurant, but I suspect that's a long way away.

To be honest, I don't care whether global warming is real or not. I care about whether I can leave my kids something better than global rubbish heap.

Originally Posted by ozwinner

Good graph, how they they take temperature measurements in the year 1000?

Al

G'day Al,

My ancestor put his thumb in the wind, took the temp, and wrote it on the wall of his cave.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

BTW how can an ice age be blamed on Global Warming ??

Well this is exactly what I mean, if you want to argue the negative case then do so from an enlightened scientific perspective. You're just as bad as your so-called fearmongers in the positive camp if you're adopting the negative position on the say-so of others rather than looking at the research. And you obviously haven't done your own homework, otherwise you would know about the Gulf Stream and why it is possible for global warming to trigger an ice age.


Cheeers
Michael

Well said mic d.

Its the gulf stream thats the problem and the sceptics wont debate it nor I think understand it.

Its had a hiccup recently and if it stops my understanding is the ice age cometh to the point that the temps of iceland reach as far as France within a couple of years.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok BTW how can an ice age be blamed on Global Warming ??

Well over the last 30 million years or when ice ages have happened in 'recent' time, the earths climate has fluctuated between glacial maximums or ice ages and glacial minimums, when the ice thaws to some extent, the seas rise and temperatures get pretty mild for a while.

last one was between 25,000 and 12500 years ago, when it melted, via excessive valconic activities, the worlds oceans rose by up to 300 ft, bass straight watered over and seperated Tasmanina form the mainland, the aboriginies that were there got 'trapped' in Tassie.

The gulf stream in the atlantic keeps the warmer temps in check but if lots of cold water melts from the arctic, then it cools the gulf stream and europe's temp drops, triggers an ice age of sudden drop in world temperature.

basically th earth temp fluctuates over very long cycles

Check wiki for basic details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_ice_age

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html



http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

A quick background to the last ice age

The time span of the last 130,000 years has seen the global climate system switch from warm interglacial to cold glacial conditions, and back again. This broad interglacial-glacial-interglacial climate oscillation has been recurring on a similar periodicity for about the last 900,000 years, though each individual cycle has had its own idiosyncrasies in terms of the timing and magnitude of changes. As is usually the case with the study of the past, data are in short supply, and only a few sketchy outlines are known for the earliest cycles (Winograd et al. 1997). Even for the most recent oscillation beginning around 130,000 years ago there is still too much ambiguity in terms of the errors in geological dating techniques, in the gaps in the record, and in the slowness of responses by indicator species, to know precisely when certain events occurred and whether the climate changes were truly synchronous between different regions. The general picture summarized here (and in the separate map sections below) roughly reflects the present consensus gained from ice cores, deep ocean cores, and terrestrial and lake sediments around the world.

This is what happens when the earth warms up a bit

Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. In many respects, this phase seems to have resembled some of the earlier interstadials that had occurred so many times before during the glacial period. Conditions in many mid-latitude areas appear to have been about as warm as they are today, although many other areas - whilst warmer than during the Late Glacial Cold Stage - seem to have remained slightly cooler than at present. Forests began to spread back, and the ice sheets began to retreat. However, after a few thousand years of recovery, the Earth was suddenly plunged back into a new and very short-lived ice age known as the Younger Dryas. Although the Younger Dryas did not affect everywhere in the world, it destroyed the returning forests in the north and led to a brief resurgence of the ice sheets. This map by D. Peteet shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world. The main cooling event that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas seems have occurred within less than 100 years, according to Greenland ice core data (Alley et al. 1993). After about 1,300 years of cold and aridity, the Younger Dryas seems to have ended in the space of only a few decades (various estimates from ice core climate indicators range from 20 - 70 years for this sudden transition) when conditions became as warm as they are today. Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).

the last 130,000 years temperature cycle.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

A summary of the sequence of events for the last 130,000 years ('real' years);

Phases about as warm or warmer than the present are marked in bold.

---

150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)
130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
(except; about 2600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas)

I guess that just about explains that it has happend before and likely to happen again.

Now do we really have the power to stop it?
Or are we just kidding ourselves that we do?

I think we are better off planning how we will react to it than how we can influence it.

Yes I guess oil will run out in the future some time that has been known for some time. Look on the bright side when it does run out, NO MORE C02. Life will surely be different when that happens.

Again we need to be planning for the future with no Oil or at least significantly less oil.

This is possibly the only benefit of the current hysteria on Global Warming. We may just find a feasable alternative.

In stead of guys like Gore lining up to make billions out of carbon trading schemes etc. That money would be better spent looking fuel alternatives and methods of dealing with future climate change, rather than wasting billions on trying to influence climate change.

It is like trying to stop the tide comming in.