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

[souljourney]

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.

 

HA!! Yes..let's move the Earth!!

On a larger scale of time the earth is always

and has always gone through climate change...

Hey thanks FungalFractoids for the video links...

[bℓσωηG]

 

 

COPENHAGEN Lord Monckton rap battles Al Gore - Climate-Gate? - Rap News

[souljourney]

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.

 

Ok..I'll go off topic/kind of with you...just once.

This is Lord Monckton on aids in the talk which i posted

(see #8 for link to full video)..

 

...in this he says the American government knew about aids

early on and didn't do anything about it..

Back to whether global warming is due to human activity or part of a natural process

is still being debated by scientists...

So the question is why are policies being implemented

when the science is obviously unclear?

As i go back through posts here i find agreement with Garbage (post #3)...pure and simple...

[The Dude]

I have become uber cynic of the media... yes even the lefty abc and sbs, Indymedia FTW!

...so I wonder how many stooges are planted to act out the role of a climate change denier or a skeptic of the official science, or a proponent of an alternative idea, with an added degree of idiocy to make it appear that anything bar the official version of the truth is stupid. When a professionals esteem and livelihood is due to government/corporate funding, the "professional opinion" becomes a mouthpiece of government ...all part of the drama play they call politics.

Money lenders and Tax collectors... nothing changes... apart from the climate I suppose.

[FungalFractoids]

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?

[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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

Edited December 16, 2009 by FungalFractoids

[PD.]

SHIT! 130 years ey, man thats huge on the scale of the life of earth........

and yeh, sorry, forgot to let you enlightened city dwellers of the sarcastic tone of my post

[FungalFractoids]

SHIT! 130 years ey, man thats huge on the scale of the life of earth........

and yeh, sorry, forgot to let you enlightened city dwellers of the sarcastic tone of my post

 

You miss the point entirely! Watch video 5 from those posted above (if you actually give a shit, which, knowing you so well I highly doubt)

[PD.]

Watch video 5

no

[Legba]

no

 

LOL, PD. I think to play the game you need to choose a side; Nature Denier or GW Denier, then the science can be described as 'taken as read' and get down to the business of insulting the other sides parenthood and masculinity and stuff like they do in the press.

'no' is probably a better game ;)

[FungalFractoids]

no

 

Yeah, enjoy your death heat summers there buddy! You'll never be able to grow mullies ever again!

[PD.]

Oh the horror The heat i can handle, its the freakn wind that dus my head in.

...and stop calling it Global warming, ffs, its you thats been "astroturfed"(jesus if i ever really use that phrase please punch me in the balls), climate change mate, get it right.

'no' is probably a better game

no is the best game bacc, gets all them "non receptives" worked up.

[FungalFractoids]

The two terms are interchangeable, champ! Wally Broecker coined GW back in 1975 in his paper “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”. You should stick to things you know about, like cactus and shitty indian tattoos

[PD.]

The two terms are interchangeable

No.

[PD.]

and really, i know about things because i enjoy them, i dont spend from 10.54am till 3.49pm researching a subject so i can pretend im all informed and shit, lol, you need a job more than i do Fungal.

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

Did anyone see Senator Steve Fielding (denier) recently holding up that graph that showed CO2 increasing but global temperatures decreasing? How the hell does he explain melting ice-sheets and glaciers if global temperatures are decreasing? No wonder Al Gore didn't want to be seen "debating" with Steve Fielding over that one. It seems to me that the case for that sort of outright denial fell apart more than ten years ago, and yet we have policy makers still stuck on it, & don't get me started on Tony Abbot's mob of goons.

Modern skeptics all agree on two facts,

1. Global temperatures are increasing (because the ice-sheets are obviously melting), &

2. CO2 levels are increasing because all the measurements confirm this. In fact their latest explanation of a 'Natural cycle' seeks to explain the very existence of these two phenomena rather than deny them.

They say 'CO2 and global temperatures are both increasing because of some 'Natural Cycle' and that human emissions only play a minor role in the grand scheme of things'. But if the scientists were right to begin with, then maybe we should just listen to them for once instead of saying they're wrong again.

Leave the science to the scientists! They put man on the moon and mobile phones in your pockets and climate science was around long before any of that.

And as for this bloody HOO-HA that the talks in Copenhagen are just a conspiracy to impose new taxes on us... When did a government ever need to create a conspiracy to impose a new tax on people? And why would they even want to impose a tax on their own industries anyway? It seems they are only trying to avoid an ETS rather than implement one.

The only conspiracy I believe in is that of misinformation spread by the Uber-rich energy companies to avoid cleaning up their act. Where do you think Steve Fielding got his dodgy graph from anyway?

Once again it's the greedy bastards of this world that are ruining things for the common man. If you're with those bastards then you are helping them kill the dream of a more peaceful and beautiful world.

YOU BASTARDS!!!

Edited December 17, 2009 by San Petrovinski

[FungalFractoids]

I'm just sooo happy to be footing the bill for Fielding to cavort around Copenhagen waving his cooked graph in a one-man mission to convince the world that GW is all teh liez. Just so, so happy

[FungalFractoids]

No.

 

Yes

And go fuck yourself, I don't do it to look informed, I do it so I can berate morons like you. I'm much better than you, I don' pollute my lungs with tobacco smoke and am starting an apprenticeship in Feb. So go suck a nut faggot boy, go do your shitty tattoos, I'm almost a bona fide respectable citizen again

Edited December 17, 2009 by FungalFractoids

[The Dude]

^^^

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.

and Abbot is a total stooge

SP..

the comment about "govt.s dont need conspiracies to implement tax" what do you think rudds galavanting around the world for half his term was about, and likewise with bush's holidays.. and every other world leader probably... they're initiating them into the plan Conspiracy = a group of people that are planning something.

There is a group of people planning a global taxation scheme... ie: there is a conspiracy going on... like any other policies made in secret.. actually how much of the policy has anything to do with democracy? I mean when have you been personally privvy to policy making and your voice on said policy heard? ... ever... I'd say all goverments do is conspire to tax us more actually.

climate change is real... no fucking duh.. nobody is denying that and if they are they're just there to look like fools. What is not real is the solution. Very simple modus operandi... create a problem, market the ONLY solution, enslave the population as your "solution" allows for... this mechanism is apparent in all political dramas, I mean think of the recent economic downturn and chi bono?

The conspiracy is the shady motives of this taxation scheme, they couldn't just be outright with it and say.. so yeah we just want to steal more of your money... they need a reason, a life threatening reason is best, climate, terrorism, communism, the dark skinned people, whatever, to increase their budget from which to divert funds so they can exert more control through money power.

When all our tax just goes to pay off the big polluters or corrupt Papua New Guinean governments promising to save rainforrests but fuck knows where the money goes... It's a farce people.

Dont believe the hype!

don't, don't don't believe the hype!

Plant trees.

Install Solar / Wind

Grow Veggies

Join a Hippy Commune

ecoVillage stylee

have one massive wind farm say for a small community and be self reliant so whatever carbon tax they'd want for dirty energy they can keep cuz you just aint buying it!!

Edited December 17, 2009 by The Dude

[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.

Edited December 17, 2009 by FungalFractoids

[souljourney]

^^^

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.

and Abbot is a total stooge

SP..

the comment about "govt.s dont need conspiracies to implement tax" what do you think rudds galavanting around the world for half his term was about, and likewise with bush's holidays.. and every other world leader probably... they're initiating them into the plan Conspiracy = a group of people that are planning something.

There is a group of people planning a global taxation scheme... ie: there is a conspiracy going on... like any other policies made in secret.. actually how much of the policy has anything to do with democracy? I mean when have you been personally privvy to policy making and your voice on said policy heard? ... ever... I'd say all goverments do is conspire to tax us more actually.

climate change is real... no fucking duh.. nobody is denying that and if they are they're just there to look like fools. What is not real is the solution. Very simple modus operandi... create a problem, market the ONLY solution, enslave the population as your "solution" allows for... this mechanism is apparent in all political dramas, I mean think of the recent economic downturn and chi bono?

The conspiracy is the shady motives of this taxation scheme, they couldn't just be outright with it and say.. so yeah we just want to steal more of your money... they need a reason, a life threatening reason is best, climate, terrorism, communism, the dark skinned people, whatever, to increase their budget from which to divert funds so they can exert more control through money power.

When all our tax just goes to pay off the big polluters or corrupt Papua New Guinean governments promising to save rainforrests but fuck knows where the money goes... It's a farce people.

Dont believe the hype!

don't, don't don't believe the hype!

Plant trees.

Install Solar / Wind

Grow Veggies

Join a Hippy Commune

ecoVillage stylee

have one massive wind farm say for a small community and be self reliant so whatever carbon tax they'd want for dirty energy they can keep cuz you just aint buying it!!

 

Hey great post The Dude!

Expressed well...clear and to the point...

I agree,self-sufficiency is looking like the way to go. And planting more trees...stop chopping the rainforests down..they absorb CO2!!!...

Yesterday , talking with a friend about all this, we remembered "Peak-oil" and that it is getting used up hey..ties into the world-government's motivations for all this story...

We thought we better start learning how to fish...! yes...and community work like this community garden...

http://mullumcommunitygarden.wordpress.com/

Edited December 17, 2009 by souljourney

[PD.]

.And go fuck yourself, I don't do it to look informed, I do it so I can berate morons like you

It gives me a reason to berate PD endlessly with my superiority, which was always my primary motivating factor

and therein lies the truth.

What was it again.... ahh yes, please save from the sanctimonious ex smoker and you, an apprentice lmfao, i guess if ya mum lets ya then its ok.

Riled up almighty lol, the answer is and always will be no. You can throw ya "facts" around all ya like but as soon as there is a different opinion or even a sarcastic remark ffs, you (the supposed non receptive) react with simple insults. It show they type of "intellectual" you really are.

[PD.]

Here is the real truth for ya man, these graphs are real, i can see them, im sure everyone else can too, that makes them real.

[souljourney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTNdlzx-g4E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUBiTOO35oU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFurnPuIKjg&feature=channel

Edited December 19, 2009 by souljourney

[Maurice]

What's wrong with humans causing their own extinction thru greed?

Its obvious, we fuck with Earth, and it fucks with us.

If AGW is the vector, then why the angst that it is otherwise?

Of course it is too late to stop. That is why we have entheogens, to navigate death.

And the absurdity of the philosophy that we can consume (green technology) ourselves to sustainability.