Jump to content

Climate change.


Guest

Recommended Posts

Well. I have to say that I would not take the advice on a few people in this discussion.

Going by their dissertation....The "experts" at a now proven 97 % are not worth following. ....and that the remaining 3% are the super wise gurus who are leading us to finacial salvation....parden my complete black humour......

Realy ?.....

are you guys still so rusted on to the conspiracy theroy and hate the majority of real science that much ?

Do you not except that co2 is the highest in 3 million years ?

That 50 % of that has happened in the last 200 years ?

So lets put that in perspective....when has that ever happened .....EVER ?

In the recent history, we havnt had a massive comet or volcano....so why ?

It seems to me that you are screaming with your finger nails hanging on the last precipice of reasonable debate...

 

You should stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....see the debate is changing....its becoming more honest....

 

first...CO 2 measure is so easy and is beyond any kind of debate.

It is done with ice samples and has NEVER been disputed by both sides.

and while we are at it...the idea that a huge spike of local tempreture change is not relavent or a resonable indication of problems is also a complete madness.....

Its like saying, sure its jumped by 50 % in a fraction of global years .....but......with no reasonable anwser as to why....

 

as to the rest of what you are saying...thats the whole point.

....if the life raft is sinking....you would have to be a complete prick if you where more worried about whether it was your finger that was going to get wet instead of someone else....because the raft has everyones families.

 

That is the sad truth now.

No one belives the anti climate change zealots anymore.

The problems are now about who does what and who pays.......

It has been apparent from the very begining that this was a part of the some of the anti climate change peoples agender.

 

Stop for a second and think about some of the biggest "anti" groups...

They sure as hell wernt "mums and dads"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not except that co2 is the highest in 3 million years ?

Ummm, no. It has been this high before, several times in fact.

That 50 % of that has happened in the last 200 years ?

Yes just like the previous cycles

So lets put that in perspective....when has that ever happened .....EVER ?See graph I presented

IB, you are viewing all this just as emotionally, or even more emotionally. The first mistake you are making is that you assume that just because someone is questioning the results, therefore that someone does not believe Global warming or "Climate change" is happening. That is not true. No one, me or Scientists, are saying it is not happening. There is most certainly a change. It is that Questions are being asked of the results. Look at the graphs I presented. Questions are being asked of those results. Is Co2 the actual offender, when it can be read that Co2 follows warming. Especially when Co2 has never been proven to actually be a greenhouse gas. It has always been assumed as such. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if it isn't, then the entire fight against Global warming is going to be a waste of time because we are fighting the wrong enemy.

In the recent history, we havent had a massive comet or volcano....so why ?
So just looking at that comment, with every major eruption in recent years, the Global temperature has taken a significant downward spike. That is opposite to what you are implying and opposite to the assumption that the vast injection of Co2 would see a significant upward spike. But it has been well proven that Ash in the Atmosphere leads to a significant cooling of the Atmosphere.
Link to post
Share on other sites
with every major eruption in recent years, the Global temperature has taken a significant downward spike. That is opposite to what you are implying and opposite to the assumption that the vast injection of Co2 would see a significant upward spike. But it has been well proven that Ash in the Atmosphere leads to a significant cooling of the Atmosphere.

 

From some of the reading I have done the findings have been that most Volcanoes do not put vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in relation to what humans do.

Figures for estimated output of all volcanoes in a year is 1% of what humans do in a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Co2 output, that is quite correct rigger. All the Volcanoes don't come close to what Human production of Co2 is. But that is just Co2. For Co2 to be produced, you have to have oxygen and oxygen is something greatly lacking in the depth of the earth. If you look at what a Volcano produces in other toxic gases and pollution and most importantly, Carbon itself, then you start to see a very different scenario.

As I said, I am not arguing against Global Climate change and there are very few in the Science world that would be either. Lots of argument though in what is leading the Climate change. Lets look at Co2 slightly differently. There is argument in the Scientific world as to whether Co2 is leading (cause of) temperature rise, or trailing (the result of) temperature rise. If it is trailing, then models start looking more accurate as far as what we see in Temperature rise compared to what we see with Co2 measured. It is far more linear. If we measure temperature rise as a percentage, then we see a much more linear rise of Co2 along with it.But if we change the place on the graph of Co2, to a position of it being the leading edge and temp following, we see instead that Temperature rise is almost exponential to Co2.

The errors made in looking at temp/Co2 over History is simply due to the fact that we can only look at Ice records. We can only see the end result. That is, how much Co2 was in the atmosphere and was then locked into the ice. We can not get as accurate readings as we have today, with actual temperature and actual Co2. So was History seeing Co2 levels in the ranges of today.

The second point that annoys me is how results are published. 300 to 400ppmv of Co2. There is in our Normal Atmosphere make up, 0.039% Co2. So the level is now apparently 0.04%. A rise of 0.001% when looking at the make up of the atmosphere. A 50% increase will actually be taking the figure to the high end of 0.058%, so a 50% increase is not correct for starters. But even if it were, it's a 0.0195% increase when viewed as a Gas in the Atmosphere by volume. Yet we are seeing a far more significant change in Global temperatures.

Now....on it's own, Co2 may contribute to some global change. But even if it does, it's obvious that it is not the only thing that is contributing. Yet the world "fight" is solely based on changing Co2 levels, using somewhat dubious methods, all of which are money making for big Business. Carbon Trading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m with Wheels on this one.

 

Milosovichs theory explains most of the Temp change.

 

and because scientists say they can measure something in the ice, or calculate something in the ground / atomesphere now, and in the past, does not mean anything. and ...like i keep saying. If they are 100% right what are they doing about it.

 

how do they stop cars, planes, boats, ...

 

Whats the point of a major problem without a solution?. If Kyoto is a lemon then what is the solution.

 

Wheres the solution..... where´s the leadership.

 

Until someone leads a change all the science in the world is just a load of crap :thumbdown:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Until someone leads a change all the science in the world is just a load of crap :thumbdown:

Agree. This kind of Political nonsense has always annoyed me. Gvt's will pour billions of dollars and eons of time into Science, Commissions of Inquiries, Reviews and Adviser's, only to come to the very conclusion that the vast majority of everyday folk have been saying "but but but" about for ages. Time, Energy and Money always seems to go on everything else rather than the actual issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you are right Alan, But just think of all their mates who are on these review teams, the science advisories, et al (ex polies and Govt favourites) that have been able to coin it at obscene rates for not doing much, while waiting for their next chance to feed at the bigger trough!! You wouldn't want them to miss out would you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a comment on China. Things are changing rapidly there. China now has to the two biggest Eco Power producing companies in the world and China is spending vast sums of money on clean green technology. While the rest of the world has argued, China moved from massive polluter to Eco Technology leader and that should be seen as an embarrassment to the rest of the world while it's arguing the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry as usual this is geting muddy.

 

The questions and positions in this debate should be clear.

 

I belive that humans have directly (and detremently) effectted our climet.

 

I would like to know a simple statement from all other participants.

 

I cannot continue to debate the position of people who say "it may be" "but it may effect my (our) finacial well being".

 

The first question is fundemental.

It shouild be anwsered honestly.

 

Disccussions after that are mitigated by those anwsers.

 

To further anwser this, I propose the question...

"Is our present extreme climate change, fundemently caused by humans, or by a normal planetary cycle?")

 

So ...

is it caused by humans.....or is it a fundementaly natural cycle of the planet ?

 

Thats it.

No more if, buts, and and maybees...

No more, conspiracy stuff.

No more, "well its not that simple"......

 

Take your side and make it loud and clear.

I have stated, with far less clarity, or scientific accumnen than many here what my position is.

 

That humans and not a "normal" planetery cycle are reponsible for the immediate and possibly devestating climate change that I belive is happening.

 

"Both" is not exceptable.

All further debate should be with the statement

"I belive its a natural cycle"

"I belive its human input"

 

......and for those who wish to add that human input is natural.......thats for another post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To further anwser this, I propose the question...

"Is our present extreme climate change, fundemently caused by humans, or by a normal planetary cycle?")

Sorry but I believe Both is indeed the answer. We are seeing a "natural" warming cycle, proven by mirrored Historical cycles and then on top of that, the increase caused by Human causes.

What I don't believe is Carbon Dioxide being the actual cause and most certainly not the Onl;y cause. I believe Co2 has become a Blinker to scientists. There has to be something else. To model Global warming purely on Co2, the entire model collapses. It is well shown that Co2 follows, it does not lead Global warming. Why?? well that's the problem and no one seems to be looking.

I cannot continue to debate the position of people who say "it may be" "but it may effect my (our) financial well being".

IB, you have become far to emotional with this subject. Although I can only speak for myself, it's not about my financial well being, it is that the Subject has become a "Big Business" to may large Companies around the World and the end result has not seen any significant reduction in emissions. I am on your side when it comes to wanting to see this Planet cleaner. What person in their right mind wants to breath Smog, who wants plastic in their Ocean, who would want garbage in their streets and who wants to drink clean water and swim in clean waters.

IMO, Carbon trading needs to be axed. Large Companies pouring pollution into our atmosphere simply need to be told to stop it, or close the doors.

IMO, Scientific study on Global warming needs to be sorted out somewhat.There is too much money being spent in research into Global impacts rather than the "what is causing" and "what can be done to reduce it". You don't have to be a Scientist to understand what the impacts are going to be and you don't have to be a Scientist to know we have Global Climate change, if you just leave the cause out of the picture.

And to Sum up, remember that this is my opinion IB. I am no scientist. My beliefs and thoughts won't change Science one iota. But it is important that we all should debate this topic. It does affect us in many many ways, but at the same time, it should not be at a "cost" to us for no change and that is what is taking place out there. A few big Companies are using it to simply supplement their income and it's all being hidden behind the "smog and mirror windows" of their Highrises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I belive its a natural cycle"

 

What I have difficulty with is the following.

"Is our present extreme climate change, fundemently caused by humans, or by a normal planetary cycle?")

 

Your implying that the climate is changing more extremely than it would normally ?

 

We haven't been recording anything long enough to even have a clue what normal is

 

I personally think that we are suffering from information overload eg; if any weather event happens anywhere we know about it in seconds

50 years ago we may have heard it on the wireless

100 years ago we may have read it in the paper at least a week later

200 years ago most people couldn't read and never left their village. ( parts of America haven't changed )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 100% sitting on the fence and are struggling very much to see who anyone can clearly be on one side or the other yet.

 

Both sides are banging stuff out that is no different to the fuzzy crap we see 6 weeks out form a general election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at what China is spending millions on so the locals and tourists think it is normal farm land.
NZers are no different with that. This is in Arrowtown.

 

Don't think I'd like to be the tall dude in the middle about now.

 

wolves.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reponse has been what I expected.

That is, the majority response is "when (and if) I am directly effected I will both belive it and might do something about it".

Hardly supprising.

This is not a slight on any of the replys.

I understand, and fully except that I am the "zealot" in this debate.

I hope I am wrong,

The CO2 debate is in the long run not important. What is sadder is that it it is being used as an excuse to not clean up our act.

A previous post asked "what would you do ?" these posts are your anwser. Unless there is a fundemental change of attitude, no change is possible.

Humans suck at proactive self preservation.

We simply continue to act as if we are a small village in an infinately tolerant biosphere.

The planet is a closed system. We do effect it.

That is not emotive its a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reponse has been what I expected.

That is, the majority response is "when (and if) I am directly effected I will both belive it and might do something about it".

Hardly supprising.

This is not a slight on any of the replys.

I understand, and fully except that I am the "zealot" in this debate.

I hope I am wrong,

The CO2 debate is in the long run not important. What is sadder is that it it is being used as an excuse to not clean up our act.

A previous post asked "what would you do ?" these posts are your anwser. Unless there is a fundemental change of attitude, no change is possible.

Humans suck at proactive self preservation.

We simply continue to act as if we are a small village in an infinately tolerant biosphere.

The planet is a closed system. We do effect it.

That is not emotive its a fact.

LOVE YOUR'E PASSION AND YOU MAY WELL BE RIGHT. your solution is correct but totally impossibe in this world at this time when greed, politics, and laziness rules versus saving .... :wtf: anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is, the majority response is "when (and if) I am directly effected I will both belive it and might do something about it".

Hardly supprising.

Who said anything even remotely like that????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me which year, decade or century the climate was what it it is meant to be? And who decided that is what we should have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...