I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH

[Cliff Rogers]

I think I'll put the kettle on.... anybody else want a cuppa? :)

[Grunt]

Actually it appears the only scientists that are backing Global Warming are the ones paid to do so. And of course the guys that do the graphs that dissappear off into cataclysm. That's a 2 Billion dollar industry.

Need I say it, The only Interest is Self Interest.

StudleyWhat utter crap.

The climate scientists in Australia are paid by the CSIRO and the BOM. They are going to get paid regardless of the global warming debate.


These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists) is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,<sup id="_ref-2" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-2)</sup><sup id="_ref-3" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-3)</sup> and a few individual scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) also disagree with parts of them.<sup id="_ref-4" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-4)</sup>

Only bunch of petroleum scientists reject global warming. Think about their self interest!

Have a look at The Denial Machine (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html) which looks at who is actually say that global warming isn't true. It turns out that they are the same scientists that said that smoking wasn't bad for you.

The real money in denying climate change. The coal and petroleum industries have very deep pockets.

[Studley 2436]

Wikipedia is not what I would call a qualified source.

Have a look at today's Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21888769-7583,00.html)

It says

Cut & paste: Greenhouse gas emissions do not lead to global warming
June 12, 2007
Veteran radical leftist columnist Alexander Cockburn, in The Nation in the US, on the myth of a scientific consensus
WE should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as "the mainstream theory" of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The Left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naively conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.
Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fear-mongering, promotes the non-existent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the Cold War, in concert with the arms industry. There's money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, "Enrich yourselves!"

The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modellers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists - people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly sceptical.

Take Warsaw-based professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his critiques of ice-core data. He's devastating on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years ... Or take Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. He says we're on a warming trend but that humans have little to do with it, the agent being a long-time change in the sun's heat. He says solar irradiance will fall within the next few years and we may face an ice age ... Now read Jeffrey Glassman, applied physicist and engineer, retired from California's academic and corporate sectors, who provides an elegant demonstration of how the CO2 solubility pump in the Earth's oceans controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of temperature increase ...

OOOPS everyone doesn't agree

maybe I should check my reddies

Studley

[Grunt]

I find it perplexing that people still don't get that Climate Change is real, serious and man made.

It's serious, it's getting worse and we need to act now.
Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'. (http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.ece)

The Big Thaw (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/)

90% of the worlds climate scientists think that global warming is man made. We could ignore them and side with the deniers. If we do that the consequences will be dire.

Humans are doing an excellent job of stuffing up the biosphere.

[Waldo]

G'day,

Can't be bothered reading through 7 pages of posts, so here my rant.

Emissions Trading: :: :?

Company A: Has used their quota in emissons, so they buy a licence to burn more from Company B who has cut back.

HTF does this scheme work? It hasn't cut back on anything, it hasn't reduced anything, combined company A and B have both met their quota in emissions, so now they have to find some-one else to buy more licences from. What nichead thought of this? :?

All it does is generate a squillion dollars for the bodies that they buy licences from, it does nothing to save anything. For my 2&#162; worth it's as useless as spending squillions of dollars on stopping the terrorists from bombing us, what a crock too. It'll never happen - it's just filling the coffers of those who are smart enough to realise a cash cow.

I agree that Global Warming is happening, but Emissions Trading c'mon ::

[mic-d]

More crap. If we suffer another Ice age in the next few years it will be a result of global warming, not falling solar radiation.

CHeers
Michael

[NCArcher]

White with two please Cliff.

[Studley 2436]

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

[Grunt]

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

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg




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 (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644)


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 minorityBull. Read this. (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646)

[silentC]

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.

[Studley 2436]

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

[rod@plasterbrok]

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 ??

[ozwinner]

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

Al :?

[rhancock]

But still the point is, are you really happy to be leaving behind a pile of s$&#37;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.

[Waldo]

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. :D

[mic-d]

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.
:D

Cheeers
Michael

[dazzler]

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.

[reeves]

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100&#37;"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok http://www.woodworkforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?p=526657#post526657)
BTW how can an ice age be blamed on Global Warming ??
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
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/lastgla.gif

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 (http://gcrio.ciesin.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig3.html). 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 (http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html). 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 (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Research/Intro/peteet.01/) 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).

[reeves]

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.
<hr size="3" width="100&#37;"> 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)

[rod@plasterbrok]

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.

[Grunt]

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



Washington DC - It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the 'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

Link (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html)

[Grunt]

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

Sadly, it will make it worse. Once we have peaked in oil production, demand will outstrip supply and we'll burn just about everything in an attempt to replace oil. Coal is 70&#37; carbon and we will replace oil with coal.

[dazzler]

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

Al :?

I thought from the ice cores somehow :?

[Gingermick]

Coal is 70% carbon and we will replace oil with coal.

That'll slow the hoons down. :D

[Grunt]

I thought from the ice cores somehow

That and tree and coral rings.



That'll slow the hoons down.

$5 a litre will do that too.

[ozwinner]

That and tree and coral rings.


I think Waldo's idea is more plausible.

Al :)

[woodbe]

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


Careful Rod, you're weakening...

There is no doubt that the human race has the power to do something about it. A short journey through our short history will show that we are able to react quite well when a threat is recognised to enough of us.

Now, hypothetically, looking back on the present from the future, (and lets just pretend that we already decided it is happening): the real risk is, will we recognise the threat before it is too late to modify our collective behavior to do something about it?

The problem with managing such a large system as the climate, is that there is no on/off switch. As the ozone hole experience shows, there are big measuring sticks required between the action and the re-action. The sooner, the better IMO.

woodbe.

[Grunt]

I think Waldo's idea is more plausible.

Al :)

I'm not much of a ring studier myself but some scientists are.


Tree Rings Tell a Story

One way that paleoclimatologists unlock the secrets of ancient climates is by studying the rings in certain types of trees, such as the redwoods and giant sequoias found in California and different varieties of pines. As a tree grows, it adds a new layer of wood to its trunk every year. This forms a ring, and the age of the tree can be determined by counting the number of these annual growth rings.




Link (http://scienceclarified.com/scitech/Global-Warming/The-Study-of-Climate-Change.html)



In the past 50 years, scientists have noticed that the growth rings in corals have been getting wider. This means the sea temperature has been getting warmer, which could be another sign that global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect are really happening.
The science of predicting the 'when', 'where', and 'if' of global warming is uncertain. Our weather systems are so complicated we can't always work out what's going on. In the next issue we will look at how scientists use all the information they collect about the weather to predict what climate changes are likely to happen.
TREE thermometers

You can do your own research into climate change. Find a tree stump, a log or even a thick branch and have a look at the rings. Remember: the wider the ring, the warmer the temperatures in that year.(Hint: pine trees have the best rings).



Link (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/global_warming.html)

If you're into tree rings, pine trees have the best. :)

[ozwinner]

I got as far as "FACT SHEET TEXT" in your link.

Coming from the Australian government, thats an oxymoron.

Al :doh:

[Grunt]

I got as far as "FACT SHEET TEXT" in your link.

Coming from the Australian government, thats an oxymoron.

Al :doh:

Is New Scientist better?


Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17223154.500) see it in disappearing Arctic ice (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6615) and permafrost (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn295). The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6302) see it in disappearing glaciers (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn3634), forest fires (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4022) and fatal heat waves (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4259). Scientists see it in tree rings (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6470), ancient coral (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg16422074.700) and bubbles trapped in ice cores (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4121). These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn2225) on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn5094) and volcanoes (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17523523.500) should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn7161) of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.
Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17423392.400) (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18024225.300) and there are growing fears (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400) of feedbacks that will accelerate (http://www.woodworkforums.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn7964) this warming.




Link (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/climate-change;jsessionid=KNMKGIJCKEAG)

[ozwinner]

:trumpet: This a public service announcement. :meg:

People of the world..................

Stop typing on your computer about global warming, the energy used by your computer isnt helping with the global warming.....you are the cause of it.:death:

End of announcement.

Al :hmm:

[Grunt]

Sorry Al, it's either that or surf for .

[Groggy]

Sorry Al, it's either that or surf for .You mean to tell me we have a choice?!!!

[Gingermick]

You mean to tell me we have a choice?!!!

You blokes know nothing of multi tasking?

[Gra]

You blokes know nothing of multi tasking?
Thats why you have two screens isnt it?:U:U

[Grunt]

I think that we've established that surfing for is bad for the environment.

Bugger, I just thought it was bad for my eyes.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well certainly has been a good discussion by all.

But I'm afraid none of us have reached a consensus, and most likely won't.

But it is good to see the other side of the argument. I just can't find it in myself to agree, just too many shady areas no one is comming out and saying anything other than this is a definite maybe based on this circumstancial evidence. With so many vested interests at stake on both sides I doubt if the facts will ever be accurate.

Maybe better to go back to Grunt! to hell with the little blip in the co2.

[Honorary Bloke]

I think that we've established that surfing for is bad for the environment.

Bugger, I just thought it was bad for my eyes.

Arrgh, that's what everyone's mother says. :D Anyhoo, this global warming wheeze is interesting (sometimes) or boring (sometimes) but in either case we seem to be going round and round and round. It suggests lack of focus.

Now salmon will swim far upstream to spawn and then die. The Black Widow spider eats her suitor (unless he's cat-quick) but the males keep coming anyway. When sex comes in the window, logic leaves by the door. :) If we could somehow harness that kind of dedication to the problem (if it IS a problem), we would solve it or die trying.

Just hoping to keep the thread on topic by unifying the and warming sub-plots. :rolleyes: :D :D

[rhancock]

Well certainly has been a good discussion by all.

But I'm afraid none of us have reached a consensus, and most likely won't.

But it is good to see the other side of the argument. I just can't find it in myself to agree, just too many shady areas no one is comming out and saying anything other than this is a definite maybe based on this circumstancial evidence. With so many vested interests at stake on both sides I doubt if the facts will ever be accurate.

Maybe better to go back to Grunt! to hell with the little blip in the co2.

Good on ya! Put your head back in the sand, where it's nice and quiet and there's nothing too difficult to think about...

Sorry, Rod, please don't take this personally, but even if we can't agree on our views, we have to decide whether and what action to take. Deciding that its too hard to make a decision is not allowed!

[rhancock]

Arrgh, that's what everyone's mother says. :D Anyhoo, this global warming wheeze is interesting (sometimes) or boring (sometimes) but in either case we seem to be going round and round and round. It suggests lack of focus.

Now salmon will swim far upstream to spawn and then die. The Black Widow spider eats her suitor (unless he's cat-quick) but the males keep coming anyway. When sex comes in the window, logic leaves by the door. :) If we could somehow harness that kind of dedication to the problem (if it IS a problem), we would solve it or die trying.

Just hoping to keep the thread on topic by unifying the and warming sub-plots. :rolleyes: :D :D
Are you sure that bringing salmon and black widows into a debate on global warming is keeping on topic....?

[Honorary Bloke]

Are you sure that bringing salmon and black widows into a debate on global warming is keeping on topic....?

Well, yes, actually. First off, this thread was not started as a debate on global warming, just as a mild rant from someone tired of hearing about it. Of course it turned into one straight away, which I'm sure surprised no one.

Secondly, my analogy to salmon and Black Widows, though apparently a bit too subtle for some, was in fact meant fairly seriously. While there are zealots on both sides of the debate, the average citizen thinks more about food, shelter, and yes, even sex, than he/she does about global warming. So if you want to "do something" about it, you had best find a better motivating factor than has heretofor been put forth. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy. Dire predictions about some "future calamity" are two bob the dozen. The pollies, for all their faults, know this much--and act accordingly. No one is going to be elected solely on the Global Warming ballot, whether for or against.

So I believe it was quite in keeping with the topic. And as hard as it may be for some to accept, my personal opinion is that it makes for a lively exchange of views but it is hardly going to be resolved finally on a woodworking forum. :)

[Gingermick]

. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy.

Speak for yourself. People who make generalisations are all idiots. (someone else's line)

[rhancock]

:U
Well, yes, actually. First off, this thread was not started as a debate on global warming, just as a mild rant from someone tired of hearing about it. Of course it turned into one straight away, which I'm sure surprised no one.

Secondly, my analogy to salmon and Black Widows, though apparently a bit too subtle for some, was in fact meant fairly seriously. While there are zealots on both sides of the debate, the average citizen thinks more about food, shelter, and yes, even sex, than he/she does about global warming. So if you want to "do something" about it, you had best find a better motivating factor than has heretofor been put forth. Charts and graphs and trends and peaks are important, but not sexy. Dire predictions about some "future calamity" are two bob the dozen. The pollies, for all their faults, know this much--and act accordingly. No one is going to be elected solely on the Global Warming ballot, whether for or against.

So I believe it was quite in keeping with the topic. And as hard as it may be for some to accept, my personal opinion is that it makes for a lively exchange of views but it is hardly going to be resolved finally on a woodworking forum. :)

My apologies, I haven't worked out the icon for tongue in cheek! I agree with you that the charts and scientists aren't going to motivate people to change their habits which is why a carbon tax scheme of some sort might help.

As for lively debate, I think it is one of the strengths of this forum, that the debates are so lively.

[la Huerta]

humans will distroy themselves in the future anyway, probably from war or something, and not global warming, i don't think it is anything to worry about, when some of the worlds largest volcano's erupted in the past they released so much gas and ash that it bloked out the sun, but we are all still here right..the earth will naturally adjust , centuries ago there where periods where it was warmer than it is today, The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922 ...lets face the facts, they are not going to stop digging for oil, it just is'nt economicly smart to, we have enough for another 100 years or so and by then there would certainly be alternatives already established...i mean even if we all drive electric cars in the next few yrs, we still need oil for the planes and ships, without oil the world would stop...

i was reading somthing the other day, apparently the aboriginies are not concearned at all when asked about the effects of global warming, they seasonly burned millions of hectares of land over 40 thousand years in Aus. as part of there way of life...

we are not going to get an ice age or some global catastrophe, global warming is just something scientist invented to get more funding, there is absolutley no real evidence, only speculation, the hype will likely pass and we'll all get on with our lives, how many times in the past has someone said the world is going to end, or where going to get an ice age or get hit by a meteor, aroung 2000 we were all told there would be huge earthquakes and giant 300ft tsunamis?, that hype passed too...

people should be concentrating on what's right there in front of us, poverty, kids, people and animals being slaughted, just the other day on the news i saw a little African girl that had her hands choped off by the sick people that run the country...The Australian government recently granted $7.8 million to the CSIRO to investigate Greenhouse Gases, the Japanese government funded a $270million per year program. In 1997, after wasting $2.7 billion dollars on no results, the program was axed. A research team is presently in Antarctica to study ice depth. They envisage this to be a 10 year project. In 2004 $4.3 billion was earned by the global warming industry.

all this money wasted , it should be put to better use...like saving kids



La H

[Cliff Rogers]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one? :)

[la Huerta]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one? :)


yep...! :U

[dazzler]

I think there may be 2 beers left in the fridge... anybody want one? :)

Thats what the wowsers want you to believe. There are heaps of beers wink: .

[rhancock]

Thats what the wowsers want you to believe. There are heaps of beers wink: .

I'm sorry to disagree with you dazzler, but if you look at this graph from the Dubisco Beerologic Institute report, you'll see that the current level of beer consumption is leading to an overheating of the global environment due to the volume of hot air produced during drunken debates. Without immediate action by governments around the globe, the planet will explode in a cloud of beer induced flatulence.

[Cliff Rogers]

...a cloud of beer induced flatulence.
:shhh: You can't say that in here. :nonono:

[Honorary Bloke]

:U

My apologies, I haven't worked out the icon for tongue in cheek! I agree with you that the charts and scientists aren't going to motivate people to change their habits which is why a carbon tax scheme of some sort might help.

As for lively debate, I think it is one of the strengths of this forum, that the debates are so lively.

No worries, mate. I am sometimes so subtle that I even phizz myself off. :D :D It's a serious matter (maybe) but let's not get our grundies all twisted up. :rolleyes:

[dazzler]

I'm sorry to disagree with you dazzler, but if you look at this graph from the Dubisco Beerologic Institute report, you'll see that the current level of beer consumption is leading to an overheating of the global environment due to the volume of hot air produced during drunken debates. Without immediate action by governments around the globe, the planet will explode in a cloud of beer induced flatulence.

Damn! :((

[Gra]

This guys argument seems to sum up my position (http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/the-most-terrifying-video-youll-ever-see/)

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well Gra, I watched your video. Now as a betting man I would put the right odds in each box of the event occurring then see what the out come would be and which side you would prefer.

Also in his first column he fails to say that if the spending as in the top left box suggest, will bring on world wide depression. It would also produce the same result in the bottom left box. Albiet the world has not disintegrated. So the smiley face on the bottom left should be at best a bewilded straight face.

Incredibly naive approach to reality in my opinion.

[Studley 2436]

If you are not incredibly Naive there is no way you always be right

Studley

[Gingermick]

Well Gra, that seemed to me to trump the argument with the Bird. (If that isn't a tautology:):):)

[himzol]

Just something else to ponder,

They don't call it global warming much these days it's all "Climate Change",

(round two):D :D :D

[ozwinner]

Just something else to ponder,

They don't call it global warming much these days it's all "Climate Change",

(round two):D :D :D

And next moth its "Climate Reclassification"

Al :U

[Cliff Rogers]

Climate Relocation???

[Grunt]

Climate Reassignment?

[reeves]

Just something else to ponder,

They don't call it global warming much these days it's all "Climate Change",

(round two):D :D :D

or if the weather is not doing what people want it to we will be classified as 'climate challenged'

:rolleyes:

[kiwigeo]

My thoughts on global warming :

1. The earths climate has gone through change since year dot. This cant be argued against...there's ample proof in the rock record, polar ice cores, thousands of seabed cores from various deep sea drilling projects etc. PM me if you want screeds of references from my library on same.
2. The earths climate will continue to fluctuate over time. Since 10,000 years ago we have been in an interglacial period. Eventually we'll head into another ice age.
3. I believe we do have an influence on the earths climate and currently we are accelerating the rate of natural warming that is going on.
4. Even if we take action and later discover that our effect on climate hasnt been as significant as predicted then I dont see it as a total disaster....we will have at least done something to clean up the garbage heap weve turned this planet into and well have made an effort to reduce the obscene wastefullness that makes us unique as a species.

[reeves]

good points Kiwigeo, i agree entirley.

In fact the real lesson for humans is to improve out effect on the environment whilst maintaining our current society regardlles of whether it may 'stop' global warming or not. I dont think we can stop it but we can lessen the damage we cause.

Population density is the real problem, maintaining all those humans within a western lifestyle.

[dazzler]

Well done Kiwi.......Yours is the unargueable arguement......:D

[Gingermick]

Is that like a categorical maybe?:)

[dazzler]

Is that like a categorical maybe?:)

Im sure its uncorrect inglesh :p but sounds gooood

[reeves]

Is that like a categorical maybe?:)

I think it might be 'inclusive', that is a combination of 'yes GW is natural' and then humans are effecting the situation with our emissions and other heat inducing activities, including breathing.

Whatever the ratio for either cause, the IPCC says it's 90&#37;, other say lower, maybe 70/30, tho its possibly anyones guess which is the higher cause, natural or humans. At the end of the day the sun is the cause even with C02 emissions as in C02 traps the sun's heat in the atmosphere.

[Grunt]

Even if we take action and later discover that our effect on climate hasnt been as significant as predicted then I dont see it as a total disaster....we will have at least done something to clean up the garbage heap weve turned this planet into and well have made an effort to reduce the obscene wastefullness that makes us unique as a species.

If it is humans that are significantly changing the climate and we didn't do something about it our children and grand-children that survive will hate us.

[woodbe]

Actually, I don't care if I'm post-humously hated.

I do care if I stare a problem in the face and do nothing about it though. I'm thinking: "Am I part of the problem, or part of the solution"

Surprised this thread is not locked yet. I don't think my Tassie thread lasted this lomg... :)

woodbe.

[ozwinner]

I can just see all you "Global Warming " sooth sayers jumping on the band wagon and saying "I knew that" when its proven to all be crap and nothing more than a planet thing that has been going on for millions of years.

Al :U

[Gingermick]

Yes well, some of us may be around. :p

[Cliff Rogers]

I have more beer in the fridge now. :wink:

[woodbe]

I can just see all you "Global Warming " sooth sayers jumping on the band wagon and saying "I knew that" when its proven to all be crap and nothing more than a planet thing that has been going on for millions of years.

Al :U


And I can just see all you practiced denial experts saying 'I told you!' as the planet ejects the last remains of the human cancer into oblivion.

We are awakening the sleeping giant...

woodbe.

[himzol]

well I've just walked away from the TV, and the first thread that pops up is this one.... hmmmmm I say to my self.
I've just put up with god knows how many "you have to haggle" and "closing down sale" comercials...as far as I'm concerned, the end of humanity can't come quick enough, if only to rid the world of marketing executives.

I'll have one of those beers now Cliff.

(is there a tounge in cheek smily? (not about the beer, I really want one))

BTW I think woodbe has hit it right on the head, we are part of the problem and we do need to be part of the solution.

That said, every living thing on this planet is part of the problem.
However we are the only living things that can do anything about the solution

And now we go back full circle... Does the problem exist?


H.

[Grunt]

The Problem exists without doubt. The climate is changing and it is changing fast.

The question is whether it is caused by man or not.

Most of the climate scientists believe it is caused by humans putting GHG into the atmosphere. We will never get 100&#37; consensus on this and we will never be 100% sure of the cause.

Our choice is to do something about it or do nothing.

If we do nothing and continue the path we're on and it is cause by us the consequences will be dire.
If we do something and it isn't caused by us, it wouldn't be such a bad thing as Kiwigo has said.

You should have a look at the doco Crude. (http://abc.net.au/science/crude/)

[Big Shed]

Have been reluctant to take part in this discussion as it seems that most people have already made up their mind one way or another.

Saw an item on ABC News tonight that prompted me to add my my 2c worth.

The item was about an alarming increase in Vitamin D defiency in people of all ages. Our learned scientists have worked out that this is because the "Slip, Slap and Slop" campaign has been too successful and people are not being exposed to the sun enough.

I find this mildly ironical as it proves that science is often reasonably good at identifying a problem, but often not so good at either identifying the cause, or indeed at suggesting how to cure the problem.
So we are now faced with a problem caused by scientists recommending a course of action to overcome a problem, skin cancer, and thereby causing another problem, Vitamin D defiency.

Whilst I realise that this problem is not nearly on the scale of the problem of climate change, it does illustrate the point that science and scientists are not omnipotent.

The very science that is identifying the problem of climate change is the science that gives us our weather forecasts.
If the predictions for climate change are as accurate as our weather forecasts, than I will take the whole climate change argument with a grain of salt.:rolleyes:

[woodbe]

The very science that is identifying the problem of climate change is the science that gives us our weather forecasts.
If the predictions for climate change are as accurate as our weather forecasts, than I will take the whole climate change argument with a grain of salt.:rolleyes:

So, Big Shed,

When the weather man tells you that it is going to rain on your bbq, and you look out the window and see dark clouds, do you take your raincoat or leave it behind?

;)

Woodbe.

[reeves]

hahah Like the links posted further down the thread, rather than just endless personal opinions, have a read of the IPCC report, read the general wiki rundown on GW, read Flanneries book the Weather Makers, read Hansens NASA report, watch Al Gores movie, Read Crichtons State of fear book and then form a view.

If you do you will probaly come to the same conclusion at Kwigeo, others and I have. That both sides are true and contributing to GW. Even if humans stopped all emissions today, GW would still continue until its time to cool down again.

Large scale reduction in human population is the only way to functionaly reduce our contribution to GW. And then you still have 'natural' climate change cycles.

[reeves]

The very science that is identifying the problem of climate change is the science that gives us our weather forecasts.


BS, yr comment is a little intriguing. The general forecasts and usually done via meterologists using standard meterology techniques that are well known and publicly available.

Global warming and climate change science is a complex area innvolving various disiplines including climate science itself, paleoclimatology, atmospheric science, geology, solar studies and atmospheric chemistry among others.

The basic oberservations behind anthropogenic GW is the rise of C02 levels brought on by human C02 emissions and deforestation practices which have reduced the amount of trees and plants to convert C02 to oxygen.

This coupled with various possible 'natural' causes of global warming such as solar radiance, orbital forcing, magma tides, atmospheric evolution and others, in combination give us global warming.

These sciences and functions have little to do with day to day meterology forecasts.

If anyone is genuinely interesting in learning more about this complex issue check the IPCC report pages and maybe take some time to read the reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

specifically the technical summary

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_TS.pdf

of the climate projections

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf

informal skeptical data (could be dubious but entertaining)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/

or the numerous other sites devoted to the issue

http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
http://globalwarming.net/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

the GW for kids is possibly a good place get some simple information

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+warming+for+kids&revid=1207548386&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1575000/images/_1575441_globalguide1.jpg

Been pretty cool in these parts lately ;-)

[reeves]

GW pictures http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ GW jokes http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/environment/a/globalwarming.htm
"Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it's called [Leno snores]. ... The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold." --Jay Leno GW cartoons http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming_cartoons.htm http://healthandenergy.com/images/global2.gif http://healthandenergy.com/images/global_warming2.gif http://healthandenergy.com/images/global_warming_plague2.gif

[Gingermick]

Large scale reduction in human population is the only way to functionaly reduce our contribution to GW

I know a few we can get started with :D

[Big Shed]

I knew them nuclear bombs would come in handy one day:D

[SPIRIT]

This guys argument seems to sum up my position (http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/the-most-terrifying-video-youll-ever-see/)we should all do somthing ,just in case ..........................
One thing ,do you think this is why there is a war always going on the middle east ,if shat hits the fan, this area would be hardest hit and the most capable of doing something about it,saving themselfs by spredding to better areas .So l was thinking what would be the best way to keep them down and not impacting on the westen world ,if thing do go wrong :rolleyes:
For one ,destablive their systems and create civel wars ,once the oil is gone or nobody is buying it ,they are not going to sit there and wait to run out of water ,ww3 will be tanks and jet up against refugees x 1,000,000s .Maybe that is what is behind the war on terror ,keep them where they are manageable

:C

[ozwinner]

Ok, I think this thread has run its course.

Al :)