Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

 

2007-02-01 23:48:02
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6960|Sydney, Australia

Pubic wrote:

CruZ4dR wrote:

My city had a rainday-streak of over 85 days the last months. That means that it rained every day in almost 3 months in a row. I doubt this is just a coincidence that all of a sudden we're breaking weather records every year.
Summer here should have started in november, its february and its only just starting.  Parts of the country also had snow in January (supposed to be our hottest month) when they should have had lots of sunshine.  Too much climate variation for it to be natural.
Australia has had a drought for the last 5 years. Indeed, this is not natural.


madmurre wrote:

Seriously why would USA for instant stop the pollution if China don´t? everyone needs to ride the train if that´s the only way.
As the USA is the world's supposed "super-power", it could take some initiative and do something. Maybe then China and other countries would start to follow suit. But what the fuck, why take the chance?

And to all those critics that state "it would damage the economy", lets take a look at the recent history of General Motors.


Kukulcan wrote:

And we need that the countries apply them in the REALITY , not only ideally.
+1.


R3v4n wrote:

Australia have had a 16 year drought, snow in November (Summer), and a jump in an average temperature.  And this is not caused by Global Warming?

We have even seen parts of the ice caps floating to NZ!

I could even go to count how many good rains we have had here and i could fit the number on one hand
Well the last 5 years have been partly due to a bad El Nino, but global warming isn't helping either. In Australia, I would consider a 'good rain' to be a week of raining. Any less than that and no water reaches Sydney's dam. I can count the number of good rains on my hands.


It is called adaptation.  We should all try it.
I'll keep that in mind when Sydney's dam runs dry.


Fen321 wrote:

there is no barrier holding in this atmosphere i just can't see how it gets "trapped" indefinitely.
Never heard of gravity? There is no physical barrier keeping the atmosphere in. The mass of the molecules is affected by the earths gravity and pulled towards earth. The gas gets squashed together, creating a pressure of '1 atmosphere' (correct me if I'm wrong) at sea-level. As you go further away from the Earth, the air pressure is lessened. It would do you wise to google (or wiki) "The Carbon Cycle" - it explains how carbon is in an enclosed system and the role carbon dioxide plays.


Fen321 wrote:

How do you base such a massive claim, but not follow it up.  What happens if for some reason in the next year or two the sun increases or decreases in intensity?
It does in an 11 year cycle. This is sun-spot activity. For example, increased activity creates the phenomenon of El Nino. There is an ocean current running from central America to Australia, across the equator. If there is more sun-spot activity, more solar radiation is released, heating the water at an earlier stage. In turn, this means that the water evaporates and creates rain before it reaches Australia. As a result, Australia is plunged into a drought.


Fen321 wrote:

huh.....isn't a portion of the smoke Co2? If so why isn't it causing the same drastic effects that our produced Co2 has on the climate?
You being serious...? The basic combustion reaction is as follows (presented without matter states):

C + O2 ---> CO2

Carbon dioxide is the major product of combustion. When there is not enough oxygen, there is leftover carbon. It is those particles of carbon that are the "Soot" in smoke. Some smoke also comprises of water vapor, but that depends on the fuel (ie. if it contains hydrogen).


Vilham wrote:

Ill say this once again... the BBC doesnt make claims if it doesnt see evidence to support it, they dont like making liars of themselves. If the BBC says they have seen evidence im inclined to believe them than say you. In the last 200 years we have burnt most supplies of fossil fuels that we can find... England used to be covered in forest, now its not... a hell of a lot of the worlds locked CO2 has been released. That will make an effect.
Hmm, I was going to mention that.



That about does it.

Mcminty.
2007-02-02 00:16:19
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

k30dxedle wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

ATG wrote:

This is such tripe.

I'm researching the geography of Joshua Tree for a book I'm trying to write. The geologist can look back ten thousand years through sedimentary layers and erosion patterns and they state casually that in the last ten thousand years the soil record indicates a roller coaster ride from ice age glacier locked climate back to temperate times and back again.

One reason why life has exploded in numbers of species and range of their spread is because we have enjoyed a long period of relative geological calm.

The clinmate is changing. Has changed and continously does so, getting people worked up about imaginary solutions to imaginary problems just distracts them from the real issues of illegal immigration and a already bankrupt social security system.

Cut pollution, fine. Alternative fuels, fine. Alarmist quick fixes designed mostly to hamstring and weaken America ( Kyoto ) no thank you.
Do you mean the Glaciers and polar Ice caps were melting BEFORE I used my hair spray. 

It is Bush's fault.  He is getting rich off it.
CFCs affect the ozone hole, not global warming. Get your shit straight before spouting off about how anyone who disagrees is wrong. With no proof or any semblance it, I might add.
CFCs are many times more effective a greenhouse gas than, say, CO2. Get your shit straight before spouting off about how anyone who disagrees is wrong. With no proof or any semblance it, I might add.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-02-02 00:18:35
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

ATG wrote:

Jeez dude, giver a rest;

Vilham wrote:

lots of stuff.
What's the point of this...?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-02-02 00:22:39
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Fen321 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:


Did you know that there were Ice Ages on the Earth when there were more way more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there are today?  Read about things like Milankovitch Cycles.  Did you know that it is estimated that the volcano Cracatoa put out more C02 than all of mankind has in the last 50 years?  By every record of every heat trend for the past 600,000 years, the Earth should be heating up right now.  There is tons of evidence to contradict them.  I dont have time to list them all, but I will tell you this, I used to be so concerned about it that I almost by a hybrid car.  Then, as I began to study more and more about it, I really started to see that people are making way too big of a deal out of this.  The earth is heating up.  It is true that we are probably contributing to this - a tiny bit.  However, even if everyone on earth started being 100% green, destroying our economies, vacations, computers, and everything else we enjoy, the earth would still continue to heat up.  It is called adaptation.  We should all try it.
Funny I used to be a skeptic, then I started paying attention to the evidence, just the opposite. Yes I am aware of the previous ice ages. If you look at the co2 levels they coincide nearly perfectly with temperature increases and drops.
I take it you didn't watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiF67GaOoE. Funny you should mention the Milankovitch cycles because it helps to demonstrate the correlation between the two also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vost … lation.jpg . Yes the earth should be heating up at this stage of the cycle, but not to the degree it is. Looking back over 650k years we have NEVER seen this trend. No we cant stop it but we can slow it, and takes steps to at least recognize it and adjust. It is important that we do this now since any change will take a long time to see. Humans are responsible for around 5 percent of the co2 in the atmosphere. Although it seems like a small amount it is the slight shift that can cause tremendous changes on a environmental level. A five degree increase in world temparatures means I am typing this post underwater.
'

Can a large Volcano contribute in its massive eruption 5% of what is human contribution if not more? If so explain to me how Volcano's can produce so much CO2 and not cause such a "drastic" change in climate. While i understand that this system is dynamic, you fail to mention the fact that we are basing predictions off what, status quo consumption. While increase in consumption in fossil fuels will undoubtedly increase green house gases, i implore you to guess where they will go....the same place the Volcano contributed Co2 will go. The system is not self contained and CO2 does not get "trapped" in the system for it is not a closed system.

What happens when you have unprecedented data, does that equate to you being correct in terms of your correlation or is there something else contributing to the change, perhaps more activity/intensity in our own sun?


In all seriousness .......weather men don't predict weather trends with 100% accuracy 1 day in advance, but we are lead to believe that these scientist will predict weather patterns that effect  the entire globe years in advance, that should throw up a red flag for any human with a fair amount of reason left in them.
They can. But when was the last 'massive eruption'? For my money it was about 120 years ago on a small island in the Sunda strait.

Computers don't work on random guesses, they work on data and they extrapolate in accordance with the parameters and rules that they are given.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-02-02 03:24:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

But forget the scientific debate: Insurance companies are convinced global warming is a threat, and coastal property owners are already paying more for premiums - and even losing coverage - because of the fear.

They are saying the report says Humans causing the UN-NATURAL portion of the amount is about 89 percent. The report does also say although we caused it, the likeliness of us being able to stop the damage now is not looking good.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 03:27:36)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-02 03:34:02
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6800
We can at least lessen it.
2007-02-02 03:40:43
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

We can at least lessen it.
Doesn't look like it. We broke it, and they don't see it as fixable. I'll get my scuba gear out now...lol

PARIS - International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_ … _change_38

The scientists said the changes are "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

If anyone is interested I found the summary of the report http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf .

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
mean sea level.

https://i18.tinypic.com/35cod1l.jpg

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 04:00:34)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-02 03:58:05
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6960|Sydney, Australia

Spark wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

In all seriousness .......weather men don't predict weather trends with 100% accuracy 1 day in advance, but we are lead to believe that these scientist will predict weather patterns that effect  the entire globe years in advance, that should throw up a red flag for any human with a fair amount of reason left in them.
They can. But when was the last 'massive eruption'? For my money it was about 120 years ago on a small island in the Sunda strait.

Computers don't work on random guesses, they work on data and they extrapolate in accordance with the parameters and rules that they are given.
Spark wins.



For example, scientists are starting to predict more rainfall in Australia, hopefully bringing some drought relief. They are basing these predictions on measurements of sunspot activity. There is less sunspot activity, meaning less intense solar radiation. This in turn will affect the ENSO, or El Nino Southern Oscillation Index.

It will be shifted toward La Nina, the opposite of El Nino. This will affect one of the major south pacific ocean currents and in turn, hopefully, lead to more rain in Australia.

Fen, it is a lot easier to determine weather patters and systems  -  that can predict if it will generally be wet or dry (for eg.) over the next few years  -  than it is to predict that 'tomorrow will be clear in the morning, with temperatures reaching 26C by the middle of the day, and that it will rain in the afternoon as temperatures will slip into the low teens."



Mcminty.
2007-02-02 04:17:44
JahManRed
wank
+646|6867|IRELAND

Its ok, we are going to stick some mirrors up there and pump the atmosphere full of dust to sort it out.

Carry on.
2007-02-02 05:17:56
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|6807|Oxford
Global warming 'very likely' man-made
When the title reads 'Global warming definitely man-made' I'll be interested.
2007-02-02 05:20:46
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6606|Columbus, Ohio

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why do people believe scientists when it comes to gloabl warming, but dismiss them when it comes to religion?
2007-02-02 05:30:36
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6768|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

usmarine2007 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why do people believe scientists when it comes to gloabl warming, but dismiss them when it comes to religion?
What do you mean? What line are the scientists you are referring to taking in regards to religion?

They are two very different issues and I believe that scientists should be listened to on the global warming front because it REALLY is a life and death sort of sceanario if it gets serious enough.

I hope this isn't your attempt to derail the thread
2007-02-02 05:32:41
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6606|Columbus, Ohio

TeamZephyr wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why do people believe scientists when it comes to gloabl warming, but dismiss them when it comes to religion?
What do you mean? What line are the scientists you are referring to taking in regards to religion?

They are two very different issues and I believe that scientists should be listened to on the global warming front because it REALLY is a life and death sort of sceanario if it gets serious enough.

I hope this isn't your attempt to derail the thread
A lot of people only believe scientists when it suits their beliefs.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-02 05:32:57)

2007-02-02 05:33:28
ELITE-UK
Scratching my back
+170|6713|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

usmarine2007 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why do people believe scientists when it comes to gloabl warming, but dismiss them when it comes to religion?
because global warming makes sense, religion makes no sense, theres no god basically imo!
people see whats happening to the world because of global warming, but alot of people dont believe this, but rather believe in god when they havnt actually see him, or seen him do anything, all they have is a book, which anyone could have wrote 2000 years ago!

When the smartest people in the world (the scientists) say that we are warming up the climate due to too much carbon dioxide going into our atmosphere and seing the results on tv and for real sometimes...how can you not believe them?

but believe in god, when theres no proof of him at all?

i believe in what i see, and be realistic!

Last edited by ELITE-UK (2007-02-02 05:34:47)

2007-02-02 05:35:48
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6606|Columbus, Ohio

ELITE-UK wrote:

but believe in god, when theres no proof of him at all?

i believe in what i see, and be realistic!
What you see?  Fair enough.  I see it is not going to get above 15F at all this weekend.  That is cold as hell.  I believe what I can see also.
2007-02-02 05:40:47
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6768|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

usmarine2007 wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


What do you mean? What line are the scientists you are referring to taking in regards to religion?

They are two very different issues and I believe that scientists should be listened to on the global warming front because it REALLY is a life and death sort of sceanario if it gets serious enough.

I hope this isn't your attempt to derail the thread
A lot of people only believe scientists when it suits their beliefs.
Count me out of that, if that large amount of scientists can come to such a conclusion of a topic there is no choice but to accept their decision.

I personally normally accept the decisions of professors and scientists because they are our teachers and some of smartest people in society, many of which devote their entire lives to make sure that other people gain knowledge.
2007-02-02 05:41:48
ELITE-UK
Scratching my back
+170|6713|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

usmarine2007 wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

but believe in god, when theres no proof of him at all?

i believe in what i see, and be realistic!
What you see?  Fair enough.  I see it is not going to get above 15F at all this weekend.  That is cold as hell.  I believe what I can see also.
yes because its not a over night change! its a gradual man made change and its going to speed up.

if you lived in the UK you would see for yourself whats happening, ever since the mid 80's we have been getting lesss and less snow each year, and hotter and hotter summers each year. this year we had a 1 hours snow fall and that was at night, thats it! its feburary now, and its already feeling like summer, flowers are growing back, bees are out, birds are back (some of them) and its quite warm for this time of year.
2007-02-02 05:52:42
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Spark wrote:

k30dxedle wrote:

CFCs affect the ozone hole, not global warming. Get your shit straight before spouting off about how anyone who disagrees is wrong. With no proof or any semblance it, I might add.
CFCs are many times more effective a greenhouse gas than, say, CO2. Get your shit straight before spouting off about how anyone who disagrees is wrong. With no proof or any semblance it, I might add.
The impact of CFCs on overall global warming is minimal. Look at the estimates for the volume of CFCs and the volume of CO2 and you will find that there is several million times more volume of CO2 than CFCs.
2007-02-02 06:19:03
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Global warming 'very likely' man-made
When the title reads 'Global warming definitely man-made' I'll be interested.
Given the skeptical nature of scientist when they say very likely and use numbers like 90 percent you can count on it being certain. If someone told you that it was very likely you were going to die in a plane crash I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get on the plane.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-02 07:24:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Global warming 'very likely' man-made
When the title reads 'Global warming definitely man-made' I'll be interested.
Given the skeptical nature of scientist when they say very likely and use numbers like 90 percent you can count on it being certain. If someone told you that it was very likely you were going to die in a plane crash I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get on the plane.
lol

I can just imagine that.

"Ladies and Gentlemen this is your pilot speaking, it is very likely that we will all crash and die today, I hope you enjoy your flight on the offchance that you survive it".
2007-02-02 07:33:15
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Cheers to Kmarion for the link to the 2007 IPCC report.

I found this table a bit worrying.

https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2431/ipcckf5.jpg

Note how the sea level rise has been more than double in the last 10 years what it was in the past 40. That's more than an 8-fold increase in the rate of change. If that rate continues, bad stuff WILL happen.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-02 07:35:39)

2007-02-02 08:03:46
weamo8
Member
+50|6682|USA

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I was quoting hundreds of scientist with an intense amount of research. You have a decent amount of evidence to contradict them?
Did you know that there were Ice Ages on the Earth when there were more way more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there are today?  Read about things like Milankovitch Cycles.  Did you know that it is estimated that the volcano Cracatoa put out more C02 than all of mankind has in the last 50 years?  By every record of every heat trend for the past 600,000 years, the Earth should be heating up right now.  There is tons of evidence to contradict them.  I dont have time to list them all, but I will tell you this, I used to be so concerned about it that I almost by a hybrid car.  Then, as I began to study more and more about it, I really started to see that people are making way too big of a deal out of this.  The earth is heating up.  It is true that we are probably contributing to this - a tiny bit.  However, even if everyone on earth started being 100% green, destroying our economies, vacations, computers, and everything else we enjoy, the earth would still continue to heat up.  It is called adaptation.  We should all try it.
Funny I used to be a skeptic, then I started paying attention to the evidence, just the opposite. Yes I am aware of the previous ice ages. If you look at the co2 levels they coincide nearly perfectly with temperature increases and drops.
I take it you didn't watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiF67GaOoE. Funny you should mention the Milankovitch cycles because it helps to demonstrate the correlation between the two also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vost … lation.jpg . Yes the earth should be heating up at this stage of the cycle, but not to the degree it is. Looking back over 650k years we have NEVER seen this trend. No we cant stop it but we can slow it, and takes steps to at least recognize it and adjust. It is important that we do this now since any change will take a long time to see. Humans are responsible for around 5 percent of the co2 in the atmosphere. Although it seems like a small amount it is the slight shift that can cause tremendous changes on a environmental level. A five degree increase in world temparatures means I am typing this post underwater.
There are thousands of other people having the same argument we are having right now, and no one will concede.  Simply because no one can prove anything.  When thousands of scientists get together and compile all the vast stores of information they have gathered and the best conclusion they can come up with is "very likely," I am willing to bet there is no real proof.

Even if we can stop it, we never will.  You better get ready to move, or learn to tread water.

BTW, there was a time when the oceans were rising at a rate almost five times as fast as it is now.  Hopefully we get to that point.  We will have beach front property in Nevada.

Last edited by weamo8 (2007-02-02 08:05:08)

2007-02-02 08:15:41
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6606|Columbus, Ohio
Why argue here.....go make some money......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/pl … 0202142458
2007-02-02 08:19:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

weamo8 wrote:

There are thousands of other people having the same argument we are having right now, and no one will concede.  Simply because no one can prove anything.  When thousands of scientists get together and compile all the vast stores of information they have gathered and the best conclusion they can come up with is "very likely," I am willing to bet there is no real proof.

Even if we can stop it, we never will.  You better get ready to move, or learn to tread water.

BTW, there was a time when the oceans were rising at a rate almost five times as fast as it is now.  Hopefully we get to that point.  We will have beach front property in Nevada.
You don't seem to understand how the scientific concepts of proof work. In science there is really no such thing as "proof" of anything. No respectable scientist will ever claim amongst the scientific community to have proved something.

Stephen Hawking wrote:

[Y]ou have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple open minded view that a theory is a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: it must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few abritrary elements, and it must make definate predictions about the results of future observations. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is just a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
By those qualifications the theory of Global Warming is a very good theory.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-02 08:20:36)

2007-02-02 08:27:32
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|6893|Teesside, UK

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why argue here.....go make some money......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/pl … 0202142458
Because seemingly a majority of people in here think global warming IS a problem where as to earn the money you would have to prove global warming IS NOT a problem.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard