Global War(m/n)ing

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

My lecturers are geologist. where do you think all the theories for climate change come from? The only evidence we have is in the past not in a computer model, that is only a hypothesis.
I don't think anyone understands how the Weather works, it's not predictable.

how about climatologists? ... how about everyone that took part in the IPCC?

yeah - if you look at the list of experts exxon funds - they tend to be geologists ... not saying they are wrong per se but they definitely are in the minority ...

people understand how weather works ... it is highly complex but it isn't without understanding ... for sure it is unpredicatable due to its complexity but its general behaviour is well understood ...

any explanation as to why enviros want to scare everyone? ... what is our end goal? ...

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

I would really look up 'Milankovich cycles' its pretty much THE theory of Climate change.

i've read up on the basics - and maybe in your opinion - it is THE theory but not to most of the experts in the world today ...

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

how about climatologists? ... how about everyone that took part in the IPCC?

yeah - if you look at the list of experts exxon funds - they tend to be geologists ... not saying they are wrong per se but they definitely are in the minority ...

people understand how weather works ... it is highly complex but it isn't without understanding ... for sure it is unpredicatable due to its complexity but its general behaviour is well understood ...

any explanation as to why enviros want to scare everyone? ... what is our end goal? ...

No my lecturers are researchers and they are not affiliated with oil companies and many climatologists carry an earth science education. The problem is that climatologist (not all) don't look at the big time scales so they are limited in their view. Do you realise that none of the models have predicted our current climate-sea level was predicted to be much higher then it is currently and temperatures much warmer.
I am not saying that enviros have an agenda they are just misinformed on the debate. You are obviously interested in caring for a planet which has survived a hell of a long time-no problem there, but there is a problem when they manipulate the debate and exagerate its implications

Obi Once

Well I dont really care about the long long long term, since a little more increase in temperature is enough to flood the entire country i live in. I've read about the axial tilts in a book years ago, and? You think that is the cause of the shifts of temperature? I'd say its pretty obvious its largely due to the increase of so called greenhouse gasses.

searchlightsoul

Obi Once wrote:

Well I dont really care about the long long long term, since a little more increase in temperature is enough to flood the entire country i live in. I've read about the axial tilts in a book years ago, and? You think that is the cause of the shifts of temperature? I'd say its pretty obvious its largely due to the increase of so called greenhouse gasses.

Hey look no arguing with you. But the large changes over the last 3Ma are not due to volcanism that was my initial problem. The carbon cycle plus other mechanisms is responsible for the small scale changes which we are experiencing now I think that has been pretty well documented. It's just the question of why its changing and is other natural stuff having a greater effect. I would argue yes.

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

I am not saying that enviros have an agenda they are just misinformed on the debate. You are obviously interested in caring for a planet which has survived a hell of a long time-no problem there, but there is a problem when they manipulate the debate and exagerate its implications

how can you say the planet is surviving? For sure, there will mass, water and some kind of life for a long long time but it doesn't mean it is healthy ... it is far from it and life is suffering because of our own selfishness ...

again - your theory has no significant backing not by experts nor in data ... to say everyone else is misinformed is just an opinion with similarily no backing ...

as for the larger changes - i didn't say it was all volcanoes - it was just an example of what is accepted as natural causes of climate change ...

given to grunge

Does anyone care about all the viruses and bacteries muting and are going to take part in evolution under all this high temperature?!
they are progressing faster than medicine!=death!!!

Pearl Jam and toast

polaris wrote:

yeah - if you look at the list of experts exxon funds - they tend to be geologists ... not saying they are wrong per se but they definitely are in the minority ...

You cannot trust the oil companies, especially on issues like this. When we were studying the alaskan oil spill (you know.. the one where the driver was juiced) in environmental science we watched the hippie activist promo video and the exxon released video,... and also learned about what actually happened.

Turns out the hippie video was pretty much on target all be it sappy and depressing,..

But the Exxon video straight up lied about almost everything. For example.. their "scientists" and executives basically said "What fish kills?" in this propaganda. I believe the number of fish kills caused by the spill was in the tens of thousands..

ugh.

polaris

i just offset my annual emissions ... the traveling this year was a bit much ... oh well ... money sometimes eases guilt ...

Smarter_Than_U

global warming will be the defining issue of our generation. do something:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10things.pdf

Obi Once

searchlightsoul wrote:

Hey look no arguing with you. But the large changes over the last 3Ma are not due to volcanism that was my initial problem. The carbon cycle plus other mechanisms is responsible for the small scale changes which we are experiencing now I think that has been pretty well documented. It's just the question of why its changing and is other natural stuff having a greater effect. I would argue yes.

I would say no, we've had a stable climate for 30.000 years making life in the manner we know it possible. Since our industrial revolution there have been changes in our climate and higher temperatures, the conncetion between the two is to me quite obvious. Something that has been stable for many many years shouldnt be f*cked with, moreso when it gives us the possibility of life. Its the balance of gasses that provides protection from the sun and a costant temperature, screwing around with that balance is not something I would dare taking a risk with. The tilt could offcourse make change in temperature possible, I dont remeber the cycle, was it 35000 years? Anyway I strongly doubt that will be the main cause off the year in and out increase of temperature, worldwide, since we're burning FOSSIL (whats in a name?) fuels and resources. Yet I could be wrong.

searchlightsoul

Obi Once wrote:

I would say no, we've had a stable climate for 30.000 years making life in the manner we know it possible.

There was an ice age 10000 years ago so I don't see how it has been stable at all.

I also love how people seem to think all geologist work for Oil companies.

Obi Once

searchlightsoul wrote:

There was an ice age 10000 years ago so I don't see how it has been stable at all.

I also love how people seem to think all geologist work for Oil companies.

So 8000 BC there was an ice age? I doubt it. Edit: Ok In a sense a cold period ended 10000 years ago, when I think of an ice age I think of earth completely white. Like the Cryogenian period

You might also find this interesting: Based on predicted changes in orbital forcing, in the absence of human influence, the current interglacial may be expected to last 50,000 years (Milankovitch cycles). However anthropogenic forcing from increased "greenhouse gases" probably outweights orbital forcing and the prediction for the next few hundred years is for temperature rises (global warming). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Interglacials_and_the_future

And assume the 2nd line wasnt a rection to something i wrote?

searchlightsoul

The last major glacial finished 10, 000 years ago and up till that time there were enormous ice sheets covering the United States and Europe. From Wikipedia-

"Glaciation in North America

Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. The set up of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level lowering of about 120 m.During the most recent North American glaciation, the Wisconsin glaciation (70,000 to 10,000 years ago), ice sheets extended to about 45 degrees north latitude."

Climate has been far from stable for the last 30, 000 years

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

The last major glacial finished 10, 000 years ago and up till that time there were enormous ice sheets covering the United States and Europe. From Wikipedia-

"Glaciation in North America

Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. The set up of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level lowering of about 120 m.During the most recent North American glaciation, the Wisconsin glaciation (70,000 to 10,000 years ago), ice sheets extended to about 45 degrees north latitude."

Climate has been far from stable for the last 30, 000 years

do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect?

searchlightsoul

Of course I do. But the question is whether this is what is responsible or is there some other phenomenon (orbial variations, solar output, differential rates in CO2 removal etc). CO2 is not the only way to heat the atmosphere!
I introduced Milankovich cycles with regard to your suggestion that Volcanic eruptions can explain the variation in climate over the last several Ma. They can not. This was not my explanation for current 'warming' but intended to demonstrate that stability is not the norm like you seem to think and has not been for ages. Why then is the current trend unusual?

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Of course I do. But the question is whether this is what is responsible or is there some other phenomenon (orbial variations, solar output, differential rates in CO2 removal etc). CO2 is not the only way to heat the atmosphere!
I introduced Milankovich cycles with regard to your suggestion that Volcanic eruptions can explain the variation in climate over the last several Ma. They can not. This was not my explanation for current 'warming' but intended to demonstrate that stability is not the norm like you seem to think and has not been for ages. Why then is the current trend unusual?

first of all, i already explained that my reference to volcanoes was an example of a natural cause of climate change - not the only reason ...

secondly, there is always a natural variability in climate but when you chart that using ice cores and such - the variability we are experiencing now is nothing like what has occured in the past ...

things like sea ice have been around for tens of thousands of years in the arctic ... its disappearing ... the presence of species that have never been in an area before ... etc.

lastly, if you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect - then surely you must realize that CO2 is in fact warming our planet ... regardless of whether there is some other phenomena at work ... you can hypothesize about the potential of another cause but you already know of one that is for sure happening ...

searchlightsoul

Yeah I never disputed that warming is occuring though I question how global it is. I mean in South Australia the temperatures have been dropping consistently for several years so I am not convinced based on what is largely northern hemisphere data-they are using Satelites now which is good.The sea ice has been disapearing for 10, 000 years.

Why should this be concerning in light of what we now, there are a lot of benefits to global warming which are never presnted and of course there are bad. Considering most of the species alive today survived the last glaciation and many others I find it difficult to believe that climate change will cause significant extinctions and besides extinction happens all the time anyway.

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Yeah I never disputed that warming is occuring though I question how global it is. I mean in South Australia the temperatures have been dropping consistently for several years so I am not convinced based on what is largely northern hemisphere data-they are using Satelites now which is good.The sea ice has been disapearing for 10, 000 years.

Why should this be concerning in light of what we now, there are a lot of benefits to global warming which are never presnted and of course there are bad. Considering most of the species alive today survived the last glaciation and many others I find it difficult to believe that climate change will cause significant extinctions and besides extinction happens all the time anyway.

weather is a global phenomena ... australia has been suffering mass drought the last decade or so ... it is not normal ...

the rate of sea-ice disappearance is far far greater in recent times vs any other time short of immediately post-glaciation ...

our biodiversity is decreasing daily ... much of it was due to habitat loss and development but now we are losing species due to climate change ... sure, some species may adapt better than others but in the grand scheme of things - our diversity is getting worse ... it is why we have scientists in each field studying the impacts and they aren't reporting good things ...

if you read the IPCC report on indicator species - you will see that the impacts lean heavily towards the negative ...

Obi Once

Downing Street says that belated US recognition of global warming could lead to a post-Kyoto agreement on curbing emissions.

George Bush is preparing to make a historic shift in his position on global warming when he makes his State of the Union speech later this month, say senior Downing Street officials.

Full story: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html