Jump to content
The Corroboree

FungalFractoids

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    471

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by FungalFractoids

  1. Posted

    Chris Monckton AND Alex Jones!? You really would believe any old shit you were fed if it tasted like NWO global conspiracy, wouldn't you?

    Anyone who actua;lly takes Alex Jones seriously should probably be involuntarily euthanasied for the greater good of the species. He's like a poor mans Glenn Beck. Probably raped and killed a girl in the early ninties too. You peado apologist!

  2. Posted · Edited by FungalFractoids

    ^^^

    Non Smoker

    Apprenticeship

    ...almost a bona fide respectable citizen again

    this validates your arguments how?

    i mean if this is what it comes down to.

     

    It gives me a reason to berate PD endlessly with my superiority, which was always my primary motivating factor. You should se how that lazy prick spends his days. He is a blight on society. Believe me, i know him better than you do.

  9. Posted

    I wonder if the Australian gov't would allow another countries police force or army onto our shores to police any prohibited substances that maybe making their way out of oz to their country...seems western or advanced countries can go anywhere and bully the locals, tell them how to do things etc..I always found that aspect of the so called "drugs war"very troubling.

     

    Already do. Dutch police for one have a presence here. As would the DEA, one would imagine.

  12. Posted · Edited by FungalFractoids

    is still being debated by scientists...

    So the question is why are policies being implemented

    when the science is obviously unclear?

     

    See, this is where the FUD campaigns are so goddamned effective. You hear in the media that "scientists" doubt global warming so you think there is "debate". There is about as much "debate" surrounding whether GW is a real, man made phenomenon as there is whether AIDS is real, or whether tobacco is harmless etc etc etc. You've been astroturfed. Watch those vids I kindly linked to on your behalf. The "debate" ended over a decade ago.

    Here, read this:

    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Link to this page

    The skeptic argument...

    There is no empirical evidence or proof that humans are causing global warming. It's all based on theory and computer models.

    What the science says...

    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat. There is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

    The line of evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

    evidence_flowchart.gif

    Humans are raising CO2 levels

    The first on-site continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 were implemented by Charles Keeling in 1958 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Currently, atmospheric CO2 levels are being measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from analyses of air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.

    What we observe is that in pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 ppm. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by 15 gigatonnes every year.

    co2_10000_years.gif

    Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Green line derived from ice cores obtained at Taylor Dome, Antarctica (NOAA). Blue line derived from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

    Global CO2 emissions are derived from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year. This means we can calculate how much CO2 we're emitting not only in recent years, using United Nations data, but also estimate fossil fuel CO2 emissions back to 1751 using historical energy statistics. What we've found is fossil fuel and cement emissions have continued to increase, climbing to the rate of 29 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year in 2008.

    co2_emissions.gif

    Figure 2: Total Global Carbon Emission Estimates, 1750 to 2006 (CDIAC).

    In other words, humans are emitting nearly twice as much CO2 than what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing a large chunk of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 55% since 1958.

    Further confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity come by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (ie - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

    co2_vs_emissions.gif

    Figure 3: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). (IPCC AR4)

    CO2 traps heat

    According to laboratory measurements and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

    harries_radiation.gif

    Figure 4: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

    This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

    What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.

    Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case - that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

    The planet is accumulating heat

    When the planet is in energy imbalance, the whole climate system accumulates heat. The atmosphere warms. Oceans accumulate energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. Murphy 2009 which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

    Total-Heat-Content.gif

    Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

    Figure 1 shows that the planet is accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.

    We also observe the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown sliver of "land + atmosphere" also includes the heat absorbed to melt ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature. For example, in 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

    An analysis of ocean heat since 2003 can be found in Schuckmann 2009 which constructed a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres using data from the Argo network. They constructed the following time series of global ocean heat:

    ocean-heat-2000m.gif

    Figure 4: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

    Globally, the oceans continued to accumulate heat right to the end of 2008, at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2. Combined with the results of Murphy 2009, we see that the planet has continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008.

    So we see multiple lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels, which is confirmed by the trend in carbon isotope ratios. The warming effect of CO2 is confirmed by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation and surface observations of downward radiation. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by ocean heat measurements and summations of the planet's total heat content.

  13. Posted

    I dont get why we are tryin to fix this "global warming" problem from here on earth. Way i see it, its the sun that is gettn fuckn hotter, not the earth. All we gotta do is move the earth a lil further away from the sun and all good again. Easy.

     

    The way you see it, eh? And screw the sattelite data of solar radiance over the past 130 years! PD has spoken

    And you wnder why we mock you poor, backward country folk? :P

    tsi_vs_temp.gif

  15. Posted · Edited by FungalFractoids

    So do you buy into his 'myth of heterosexual AIDS'?

    If not, why buy into his One World Government conspiracy? If he can so blatantly lie about AIDS why would you accept him at his word when he talks about this drivel?

    You've been astroturfed. How does it feel to do the unwitting bidding of the worlds largest corporations? I assume it would be a similar feeling o not having showered for a month.'

    The science behind climate change has never been stronger or more alarming, and in turn, the shrill cries of desperation from the denier lobby have never been louder.

  19. Posted

    I love how people deferentially refer to Monckton as 'Lord', as if his peerage gives added weight to his opinions. The man is the very personification of a dribbling idiot.

    Here's a taste of what I mean:

    Is Monckton beyond parody?

    Category: Monckton

    Posted on: December 15, 2009 7:32 AM, by Tim Lambert

    Gareth Renowden's latest post on Monckton is pretty funny, but how can anyone compete with this?

     

     

    Monckton said he had "never believed heterosexual HIV is a myth," but insisted that the correct policy at start of any epidemic is to "isolate all carriers immediately," a position he advocated in the 1980s on HIV/AIDS. Unprompted, Monckton told us he is now "working on what may prove to be a cure for HIV," but provided no further explanation or comment.

     

    (Via Brendan Demelle, who notes that Monckton is lying about calling some protesters "Hitler Youth" despite video proof that he did.)

  20. Posted

    Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor

    Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions

    Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.

    Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

    This will raise questions about crime's influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said.

    Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said.

    "Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered.

    "That was the moment [last year] when the system was basically paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was," he said.

    The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover.

    Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.

    British bankers would want to see any evidence that Costa has to back his claims. A British Bankers' Association spokesman said: "We have not been party to any regulatory dialogue that would support a theory of this kind. There was clearly a lack of liquidity in the system and to a large degree this was filled by the intervention of central banks."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

  21. Posted

    Are you trying to say something there Mr fractoids..?

    I'll have you know I only dribble when I do large dose mesc and my dad is the only one currently that thinks I'm an idiot.

    Back on topic...can you not concede that we are blips on the earths radar in so far as time goes...lets see if this makes it a better way to tackle this...let's say for all intensive purpose's that humans at this point are responsible for a current NEW shift in climate cycling or change. I'm happy to accept that this may be the first time this effect has been introduced into the climate and meteorological patterns. Therefore based on what we know from the evidence and data collected over the last few hundred years or so we as humans are continuing to populate a water planet with what appears to be a somewhat delicate ecosystem that if changed to dramatically by sudden harsh climatic change could lead to the demise of humans.

    My conundrum is..

    has this happened before..?

    has the earth been as heavily populated before, perhaps so long ago there is all but no evidence left, the poles might offer up some evidence but that remains to be seen.

    do we know what the ozone levels were thousands of years ago, and has there been a steady decrease in the ozone layer since man has walked, has the climate been up to the task of repairing it's self after major cataclysmic failures..?

    Perhaps humans are the very last stage in planetary evolution, a planet is born and goes through all it's cycles culminating in the final stage where the human virus comes alive and gets to work eating away the life and all things living, ending in sudden and brutal climate change that turns the planet into a dust bowl with no possibilty of sustaining any life that we know of anymore.

    perhaps this is in it's self one of the great natural cycles of the solar system, we are here as that very last part of the cycle and are simply doing what we have done for billions of years.

    Humans maybe just now emerging on other water planets in millions of other galaxies to begin their work at eating away and creating yet another lifeless rock.

    Perhaps this is the dance of the universe, a never ending sequence of birth, life and death, even to planets.

    edit: topic moved from news as this topic deserves a nice space on it's own to debate without cluttering up news and notice's.

     

    There are many different things that can cause climate to change, and just because something caused a change in the past doesn't mean that something else entirely won't make it change today.

    There is no "natural" state of climate. For temperatures to change something has to cause them to change, these are referred to as forcings. There are four major forcings that govern our climate:

    1. Insolation - this is input from the sun, it can change due to changes in the sun's energy output, or our orbital wobble around the sun - this is what causes the major glacial periods over 30,000 year cycles, as we ge closer to the sun, it warms, as we move away it cools.

    2. Greenhouse gasses - UV passes through the atmosphere at a wavelength that makes GHG's almost transparent, the UV hits the earth where a percentage is re-radiated as infrared and it's higher frequency causes it to interact with the molecular bonds of certain molecules, as it is emitted from these greenhouse gasses it scatters, causing a percentage to bounce back to earth. This is the greenhouse effect, it's what keeps us from having a climate like Mars.

    3. Particulates and aerosols - these tend to be emitted from volcanic activity, they are reflective particles that reflect a % of the energy hitting the earth back into space, the effect can be seen clearly whenever a large volcano goes off and global temperatures fall for a number of years. Have look at the temperature record, you can clearly see the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the dip in temps over 92/93.

    4. Amplification - this is feedback mechanisms. For example, a slight warming can cause sea ice to melt, then due to the loss of albedo (large areas of ice reflect heat into space) more dark areas of ocean are now absorbing the heat causing an exacerbation in warming. It becomes a vicious cycle.

    Now, change any one or more of these factors in a significant way then you change the earths climate. For example, the so-called Little Ice Age during the 19th century was a result of low solar activity combined with high volcanic activity, the combined cooling from these two forcings caused the earth to plunge into a mini ice age. Before that was the so-called Medieval Warm Period, this was largely due to a period of high solar activity, as activity fell it lead into the LIA. If you look at the temperature record from 1850 there has been a steady increase in temperature over the 20th century, and up until 1975 there was a neat correlation between solar activity and global temps, as the world "recovered" from the Little Ice Age. But, in 1975 solar activity dropped sharply but temps took a sharp and dramatic spike upwards. So something has to be causing the warming, and the only significant change in forcing was the 20% rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution (it's up to about 40% now)

    tsi_vs_temp.gif

    So you can see that just because different forcings caused cliamte to change in the past doesn't mean that a different forcing could cause a warming in the present, indeed, anyone doubting climate change needs to explain why increasing GHG concentrations by 40% in little over a century wouldn't cause exactly the sort of warming we are seeing now. The observed changes in the environment are exactly what are to be expected according to the physical properties of CO2 and which were calculated well over 100 years ago.

×