Global Warming.... due to human activity or not?....

[souljourney]

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/11/07/the-copenhagen-treaty/

[Chiral]

Great thread with some interesting info. I have always sat on the fence with climate change, reason being that I can't accept that humans have access to long term earth cycles and climatic synchronizations. Seriously I tend to believe there are some minor & major cycles occurring that could take upwards of 300 years to come around again. We just don't have a life long enough to warrant some of this stuff touted by experts.

Perhaps if you were to live a couple of hundred thousand years here and had been logging your solar and lunar data, cross checking it with other natural cycles..of which there may be thousands, keeping immaculate records or ice ages, earth quakes, flooding, el nino's etc..factoring in any random anomalies, monitoring increased methane production due to an animal population increase, then decrease then increase and then decrease...measure all this up against cycles that come and go at different times, also making sure to acknowledge any super long cyclic events like comets and solar flares or sunspots, and ...well you might get my attention.

But for humans to sprout that they know about such cycles now, are blaming us here and now.. for climate change, and can predict with utter certainty is seriously arrogant IMO...either that or it's controlled by someone and they are playing God.

You might say ppppffttt scientists have the data from soil and ice samples that's giving them correct data about the past...I say bollocks to you, and that it is just not good enough, nor does it go back far enough in time to support any theories put forward.

Having said all this, I will concede that this may well be the most populated the earth has ever been with humans, so the data we are collecting is "random animal population data" if we die off to low levels and then repopulate, then this data will have to crosschecked with other types of animal population data. An algorithm would need to be made up to calculate the effect of increasing to decreasing animal populations against stable lunar, solar and any other land based environmental cycles to even begin to understand what affects on the climate it is having.

I'll bet my balls the Mayans where also trying to understand and calculate all these things to help them predict the future for their crops, their peoples fate, health etc..One might even consider that they may have gotten hysterical at some point and thought the earth was about to die when they first saw a solar or lunar eclipse.

Perhaps they believed that they were all doomed to die because the sun gods were unhappy with them and foretold their demise by unusual weather patterns or natural disasters.

Many older civilizations and some not so have thought the world about to end due to unusual weather or the sky falling in...seems we are no different, i have been thinking it's getting hotter earlier here, could it just be that I have failed to acknowledge that there might be a certain subtle meteorologic cycle happening, and I am being hysterical because I have failed to notice it or know of its cyclic count.

food for thought.

[rahli]

Yea, it's the age of the armchair climatologist.

[souljourney]

Yea, it's the age of the armchair climatologist.

 

Hehe! ... Yeah.. and I just wonder

about this 'World Government' possibity

which most of the links i've posted point to...

[FungalFractoids]

You'd have to be a dribbling idiot not to believe in climate change

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

[rahli]

Hehe! ... Yeah.. and I just wonder

about this 'World Government' possibity

which most of the links i've posted point to...

 

Branches of integral philosophy are heading toward a global level of consciousness to address such issues.

The club of Budapest founded by Ervin László is one such branch. The club was formed to center attention on the evolution of human values and consciousness as the crucial factors in changing course from a race toward degradation, polarization, and disaster to a rethinking of values and priorities so as to navigate today's transformation in the direction of humanism, ethics, and global sustainability".

Steve McIntosh is another integral philosopher that thinks global. In 2004, his focus on the application of integral philosophy to politics led him to found The Project for Integral World Federation, a non-profit organization dedicated to cultural and political evolution.

Edited December 7, 2009 by rahli

[Chiral]

You'd have to be a dribbling idiot not to believe in climate change

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

 

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.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Chiral

[Korky]

"Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen."

"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F)"

"Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere."

yeh ok ive quoted wikki, shoot me.

just more food for thought.

[Legba]

"Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures. It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect, and the pulmonary condition the Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered its discovery and description in the late 19th century. Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs and eyes."

Seems like oxygen is a pollutant too

yeh ok ive quoted wikki, shoot me.

just more food for thought.

[souljourney]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765792.htm

"The leaked agreement not only brings the developing world into the frame, it allows rich countries to emit twice as much carbon as poor countries."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Edited December 9, 2009 by souljourney

[Chiral]

PARIS: If the evidence is overwhelming that man-made climate change is already upon us and set to wreak planetary havoc, why do so many people refuse to believe it?

The U.N.'s panel of climate scientists, in a landmark report, described the proof of global warming as "unequivocal." That was two years ago, and since then hundreds of other studies have pointed to an ever-bleaker future, with a potential loss of life numbering in the tens of millions, if not more.

Yet survey after survey from around world reveals deep-seated doubt among the public. A poll published in Britain on November 14, to cite but one example, found that only 41 percent of respondents accepted as an established fact that human activity was largely responsible for current global warming.

"Green propaganda"

The majority said the link was not proven, that green propaganda was to blame or the world was not heating up at all.

Last week, a private exchange of emails among climate scientists stoked a firestorm of skepticism after it was hacked and posted on the Web. The memos expressed frustration at the scientists' inability to explain what they described as a temporary slowdown in warming, and discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate naysayers.

Experts see several explanations for the eagerness with which so many dismiss climate change as overblown or a hoax. "There is the individual reluctance to give up our comfortable lifestyles -- to travel less, consume less," said Anthony Grayling, a philosophy professor at the University of London.

Emerging economies

While deeply anchored in the West, this resistance also extends to emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil where a burgeoning middle class is only today tasting the fruits of a lifestyle they have waited so long and worked so hard to obtain.

For Tim Kasser, a professor of psychology at Knox University in Galesburg, Illinois, the reality of climate change impinges on core aspects of our identity. "We are told a thousand times a day, notably through advertising, that the way to a happy, successful and meaningful life is through consumption," he said.

"But now scientists and environmentalists come along and say part of the problem is that we are consuming too much or in the wrong way."

Yet there may also be a darker explanation. It is the human instinct to shut out or modify a terrifying truth: that the world as we know it is heading for a smash.

"It's a paradox: when it comes to disasters, people do not allow themselves to believe what they know," explained Jean-Pierre Dupuy, a professor of social philosophy at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris.

"Because everybody is in denial - or would like to be in denial - and would prefer to not shoulder too much of the responsibility for dealing with the problem, you have a kind of disconnect here."

Even scientists reluctantly pushed by their growing sense of alarm into launching public appeals for action have trouble coping.

Environmental virtue

When Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at the Australian National University in Canberra, attended a September climate conference at Oxford University tasked with imagining a world warmed by 4.0 degrees Celsius, he was struck by how researchers spoke among themselves.

"It was very revealing. As they relaxed somewhat, they began to speak about their fears, about losing sleep, not wanting to think about the implications of what they do," he recalled.

Under such circumstances, people are resourceful in finding ways to reassure themselves or turn their backs on the threat posed by climate change. Some applaud their own environmental virtue: "Changing to compact fluorescent bulbs makes people feel good - 'I've done my bit for today'," said Kasser, describing a common attitude in the United States. "Blaming China and India is another great psychological defence mechanism."

Reality will bite

A more sophisticated variant is to conclude, with a sigh of resignation. that individual action isn't enough. "Even if all of us were at our most maximally green, it probably wouldn't make much more than about a 0.5% difference," said Grayling in characterising this mentality.

At some point, however, reality may bite. Hamilton, who is running for Parliament in Australia, said more and more people he meets are having what he calls an "Oh shit!" moment. "It's that moment when you really get it, when you understand not just intellectually but emotionally that climate change is really happening. I think we will see a rush of that over the next couple of years," he said.

It may take one or more terrible shocks - national bankruptcies, a major environmental disaster in a vulnerable country like Bangladesh - for that to happen, said Grayling. Once it does, "it will be impossible to look back over your shoulder and think, 'it's not true,' or 'there will be a scientific fix, it will all go away'."

[FungalFractoids]

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)

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.

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

The argument that Global Warming is due to some natural cycle is just the logical progression of the deniers to explain the inconvenient phenomenon of melting glaciers etc. They used to deny it outright, but now that that's no longer an option they look for the next best excuse to latch on to.

Let's not forget that scientists predicted the melting of ice sheets more than 50 years ago, and now (surprise surprise) IT'S HAPPENING! If you want to think that's purely a coincidence then think again. We have doubled the concentration Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so as predicted we are now seeing a slight increase in global temperatures... pretty basic stuff really.

Don't ignore the simple facts in this equation, and don't ignore the science either. Man has pumped the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide and man needs to do something about it fast. All we gotta do is start cleaning up our act, hence Copenhagen.

People who make the quantum leap to change their light-bulbs are also likely to then change their vote too, and that's where it really gets positive.

Change your light-bulbs and change your votes my friends...

Peace n goodluck! we're gonna need it!

Edited December 12, 2009 by San Petrovinski

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

...

Edited December 12, 2009 by San Petrovinski

[hutch]

The argument that Global Warming is due to some natural cycle is just the logical progression of the deniers to explain the inconvenient phenomenon of melting glaciers etc. They used to deny it outright, but now that that's no longer an option they look for the next best excuse to latch on to.

Let's not forget that scientists predicted the melting of ice sheets more than 50 years ago, and now (surprise surprise) IT'S HAPPENING! If you want to think that's purely a coincidence then think again. We have doubled the concentration Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so as predicted we are now seeing a slight increase in global temperatures... pretty basic stuff really.

Don't ignore the simple facts in this equation, and don't ignore the science either. Man has pumped the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide and man needs to do something about it fast. All we gotta do is start cleaning up our act, hence Copenhagen.

People who make the quantum leap to change their light-bulbs are also likely to then change their vote too, and that's where it really gets positive.

Change your light-bulbs and change your votes my friends...

Peace n goodluck! we're gonna need it!

 

Try this one then..

Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

Who do you believe?

[souljourney]

Try this one then..

Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

Who do you believe?

 

Great to see some investigation other than what we are fed by the mass media...

Again I'll add these...

The great global warming swindle......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

and...

Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html

What is really going on in Copenhagen?

Who will really benefit from a CO2 tax?

Some stats....

poverty statistics....

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

and...

oil consumption stats...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

I recommend watching these...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549#docid=-4430543376785758889

This looks bigger than just "is global warming due to human activity or not"....my original question has evolved as I have been checking it out and the whole news about scientific data being changed for other purposes has been exposed.... i don't know for sure... but can just add info as i find it ...

"Global warming or global governance"...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073#docid=4860344067427439443

Edited December 14, 2009 by souljourney

[FungalFractoids]

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.)

[FungalFractoids]

 

 

Edited December 15, 2009 by FungalFractoids

[FungalFractoids]

 

 

[FungalFractoids]

 

 

[souljourney]

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:

 

Off topic..we are not discussing Lord Monkton but Copenhagen/whether Co2 is causing global warming/what is really going on/what the world leaders are up to under the guise of a global warning conference..

Since you like him so much..here's another...

 

[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.

Edited December 16, 2009 by FungalFractoids

[Korky]

any one see climate change denier ian pilmer get toasted on lateline last night? (15/12/09) by journalist george monboit (the gaurdian - UK)

lateline

a great example of the quality of argument from a denier.

i sat on the fence for a while but have since seen alot of the sceptical evidence put to shame.

[PD.]

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.

[Alice]

any one see climate change denier ian pilmer get toasted on lateline last night? (15/12/09) by journalist george monboit (the gaurdian - UK)

lateline

a great example of the quality of argument from a denier.

i sat on the fence for a while but have since seen alot of the sceptical evidence put to shame.

 

hehe, yeah I watched that. Plimer made a fool of himself. Again.