Global Warming

[Barbarossa 51]

Heh, I think by definition, political leaders have no brains. It is a sad state of affairs that leaders are "elected" based on how they RELATE to people. Brains aren't part of the equation. Look at Emporer Shrub...

I noticed someone mentioned the various Ice Ages earlier. Perhaps they have not heard that what is being observed today DOES NOT fit into previous, CYCLICAL, climate changes. If the cycle is not conforming, there is obviously something wrong. Also, keep in mind that, at least, two or three ice ages were due to volcanic/meteoric activity. 600,000 years ago the Yellowstone Caldera erupted, blocking the sun for decades/centuries. A comet hit what is now the Gulf of Mexico about 65 million yrs ago, leading to an ice age and killing off the dinosaurs. Vanuatu erupted a a few thousand years ago, leading to a global change in temperatures (in fact, it is suspected only 2000 (perhaps proto-) humans survived this).

Barbarossa

[coolotter88 2]

I doubt that one day we wake up and on the news it will say

"OMG NEW YORK IS FRIGGIN FLOODED!!"

it would probably be a more gradual thing.

and also, fast breeder nuclear power plants will be able to utilise 98-99 % of the energy stored in uranium. we've got tons of uranium that can last a pretty long time.

~Edited for language in the reply above~

[Barbarossa 51]

I suspect NYC will see an earthquake before any flooding, so it won't matter much. They are long overdue for one and the skyscrapers are not retrofitted. Does anyone play dominoes? =P

Barbarossa

[ILL Tonkso 1,237]

Funny, Portsmouth England flooded the over day, in 10 minutes of rain

[jvlm.123 0]

Branson billions to fight global warming

September 21, 2006 16:29

Billionaire Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson has committed an estimated US$3 billion (€2.3 billion) over the next 10 years, or all of the profits from his airline and rail businesses, to combat global warming.

Branson was speaking at a news conference at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

'We have to wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels. Our generation has the knowledge, it has the financial resources and as importantly it has the will power to do so,' he said.

Most international experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the primary cause of a rise in temperatures over the past century.

Branson's announcement comes one day after the Bush administration said it was committing $3 billion to climate technology research and development.

---

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0921/virgin.html?rss

[____----____ 37]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 I doubt that one day we wake up and on the news it will say

"OMG NEW YORK IS FRIGGIN FLOODED!!"

it would probably be a more gradual thing.

and also, fast breeder nuclear power plants will be able to utilise 98-99 % of the energy stored in uranium. we've got tons of uranium that can last a pretty long time.

~Edited for language in the reply above~quote>

 

yes a gradual thing already happening and what is the plan in 50-100 years?

move the entire 20mil metro area 20 miles inland?

[coolotter88 2]

that reminds me of the episode in the simpsons where they move springfield 5 miles away from the garbage dump they made.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: jvlm.123

Branson billions to fight global warming

September 21, 2006 16:29

Billionaire Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson has committed an estimated US$3 billion (€2.3 billion) over the next 10 years, or all of the profits from his airline and rail businesses, to combat global warming.

Branson was speaking at a news conference at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

'We have to wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels. Our generation has the knowledge, it has the financial resources and as importantly it has the will power to do so,' he said.

Most international experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the primary cause of a rise in temperatures over the past century.

Branson's announcement comes one day after the Bush administration said it was committing $3 billion to climate technology research and development.

---

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0921/virgin.html?rss

quote>

 

He should concentrate on   on alterative space craft development.

[Evil_Someone 1]

the news about O recovering will just make people think that Earth has recovered and that they can continoue to polute Earth

[Haljackey 17,325]

Ya, oil is high everywhere, except in the USA where it is the cheapest in the world. The only other exception is here in Canada, where Oil is moderatley priced because we don't need to import the oil. What ever is leftover from us we sell to the big Oil companites in the States.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases have caused the planet to heat up dramatically on a planetary scale. 2005 was the warmest year on record, and 2006 is going to be somewhere around #2. This doesnt mean that the earth is colling, we just "got lucky"

I was watching CNN today and was angered saying that Gore's movie an inconvient truth is having a big impact on "the country". Typical American reporter... that movie is havign a big impact on the WORLD! Yea it plays everywhere! Why does the US stations see this global warming issue as an American issue and not a global issue? Would ratings go down or somthing? Or is the reality just too much for the American people?

Australia and the USA gotta get off their A-holes and sign Kyoto. Only then can we really start to solve this global issue as a global society! We need every country commited to this issue, even losing one can have appoliptic consequences. One planet, one problem, one soluton as one inter-nation.

Hey, no offence to any specific country, just the way goverments conterdict eachother... If we keep this up we will never reach a goal.

[confused04 14]

First, lets not try and be disrepesctful to nations/nationality. The reason why the CNN Today reporter said that it was having a large impact on this country is because this country is notriously behind when it comes to global warming education. Besides, he was on a show that is predominately watched by Americans. Remember, it was also an American that MADE that movie so lets not get all testy over something that is highly trivial. All he said was "its having an impact on America"... that is probably true to some extent so the comment isn't incorrect. That sentence has no connotation of "American Elitism".

Although I'm an avid believer in Anthropogenic global warming, and preventing the oncoming crisis, I do not support the Kyoto Protocol. Its highly inefficient, unrealistic, and the ability to sell "CO2" rights is absurd. Countries who sign it, tout this wonderful treaty and NONE have reduced CO2 output and ALL of the countries signing are going to miss their initial goals. If you want ever country to commit, we need a stronger treaty that incurs harder penalties for those who miss their goals AND don't sign (i.e., if they don't sign, we'll economically respond to all non-signees).

Regarding the "we've only had accurate records for 100 years".... perhaps reading what myself and others have posted multiple times, there is indirect and even direct evidence that is reliable for determing global temperature and CO2 levels for the past hundred thousand or so years. This arguement is one tag line that the Industry leaders use to attack genuine scientific research. This cycle we are currently in is hardly "natural" as we theoretically should be heading towards an ice age (as was once believed back in the 1970s). But with a spike in CO2 concentration from the Industrial revolution, there will be a large lag time between the effects felt and the actual increase. Even if we were to somehow DECREASE CO2 production, global warming will continue for some time. The damage is done and at this point its how much damage can we limit.

Another concept that people don't realize is important is the TYPE of vegetation used to sequester CO2. Many claim that the increase in CO2 will fuel plant growth and thus sequester the CO2 in more vegetation. To some extent, this is true, however, many of the crops we plant use C4 photosynthesis (particularly corn) that uses far less CO2 than C3 photosynthesis and as we replace more forests with crops to feed our population, we will lose more capacity of CO2 vegetation sequestering.

Unfortunately, people do believe that CFC's are exteremely significant in Global warming and now that we have essentially eliminated CFC's, global warming should go away. CFC's do have a tiny tiny effect on global warming, but nothing compared to CO2.

[Camaron 1]

Originally posted by: jvlm.123

Billionaire Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson has committed an estimated US$3 billion (€2.3 billion) over the next 10 years, or all of the profits from his airline and rail businesses, to combat global warming.quote>

 

I think this is excellent news, I saw him speaking about it live on the news, this might be a stunt to get media attention bu overall I think what he has done is a good thing.

Unfortunately, people do believe that CFC's are exteremely significant in Global warming and now that we have essentially eliminated CFC's, global warming should go away. CFC's do have a tiny tiny effect on global warming, but nothing compared to CO2.quote>

CFC's are approximately 10,000 times better at trapping heat than CO2, and methane is approximately 30 times better. Despite this, CO2 contributes about 50% to the greenhouse effect because of the huge amounts of it in the atmosphere compared to other green house gases.

[coolotter88 2]

this year hot? i don't think so, this summer was very cool.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A_lrg.gif

that is a graph of global temperatures, throughout the graph, CO2 levels are rising but how do you explain the decrease in temperatures from 1940-1970?

and exactly how big of a difference do you think there is between the late 1800s and the late 1900s? in 100 years, we only see a difference of about half a degree celsius...

[confused04 14]

Half a degree celcius for a "global average" is a MASSIVE change to have in just 100 years.  We are only 5 "Global Degrees Centigrade" from an ice age. So in just 100 years, we moved 10% away from an ice age.  The decrease in temperatures may have actually been natural.  Temperatures generally lag behind CO2 concentration fluctuations.  Also, perhaps that period of time would have been much colder without the influence of man (argueably that could have been the next ice age as our interglacial warm period has lasted longer than any previous ones).  The early 20th century trends can be explained by the heat capacity of the oceans.  While the 19th and early 20th centurys have indeed been charactarized by substantial CO2 dumping, it was countered by the ability for oceans to absorb excess CO2 as well as the increase of temperatures.  However, an equilibrium has been surpassed where the oceans are reaching their limit of dissolved CO2 and the oceans are not keeping up with atmospheric temperature. 

Lets look at oceans when temperatures change in the short term.  The temps of the ocean lag behind air temps as heat is slowly lossed or gained.  Thats why the ocean is cold in the spring (despite being perhaps 80 F outside) and conversely why the water is very warm in September or October (where Hurricane season reaches its peak).  However, lets say there's a record 100 degree day in October, the oceans will obviously not be able to keep up, and again conversely, if it was 0 F three days later, it will not freeze over either.  After being subjected to increasing world wide temps, the oceans ability to buffer atmosphere temps at "normal" has not been easy. With increased SST's and increasing air temps, the equilibrium or "normal" has to shift to account for an overall increase in heat.

The link I've provided is a lengthy but easy read about Global warming and it should give a hard scientific look at the facts.  The author does include natural cycles, but the evidence leads him to the same conclusion... anthropogenic forcing.

http://ej.iop.org/links/r0LU3coHI/aDe41jpL2xGqHZVuav5vpA/rpp5_6_R02.pdf

Also, a "global increase" of half a degree centigrade doesn't exactly portray the true nature of this crisis.  As you know, most of the surface of this world, is covered by oceans.  And as described earlier, there is a buffering of temps around bodies of water.  This global average is distorted by the fact that increases in temperature are hardly "global".  Many high/mid latitude areas have not only experienced an increase, but some have experienced a 2.5 C increase.   The only reason why we have to use the "global" average is because no one will listen if you say... Yellowknife has experienced a consistent temperature trend increase of 2.5 C.  Skeptics will just say "thats just Yellowknife".  By expressing the average increase in global temperatures, it presents a global problem caused by the global community.

And regarding humans for being "arrogant" to assume we can change our atmosphere or how "puny" we really are.  Before complex life formed, our atmosphere was dominated by nitric acid and CO2, with the global thermostat set to "scalding and sterilizing".  Yet it was the smallest life on earth, relatives of the cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere to be dominated by inert N2 and more importantly O2.  This was when life couldn't inhabit the shallow surface waters due to UV radiation.  Yes, this took awhile, but they had far more extreme circumstances to do this.  Our benign circumstances and our dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere is IMMENSE.  As I posted on Sporeum, with a link to the USGS.  The amount released by volcanos is less than 1% of what humans release annualy.  Volcanos can change the global climate with one eruption (see Mt. Pinatubo) and if we continue what we are doing, its no doubt that of course we'll change our atmosphere. 

[coolotter88 2]

well we're talking about global warming right? so how come we don't see an average increase in temperatures throughout the world?

alice springs average graph http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501943260004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

paris has barely changed too

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=615071500001&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

even yellowknife

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719360000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

check the other places in europe, they haven't changed much either.

and yet tokyo goes way way up. people i thought this was supposed to be global!

[confused04 14]

Because what happens in one area often affects the entire globe.

For example... El Nino!

You picked three random sites, how about picking 3,000 random sites.

Besides Paris and Yellowknife DO show a trend of increasing temps (its hard to tell if looking point by point). But notice the hot years in Paris and Yellowknife, they each get hotter. Not all areas are experiencing identical patterns. Indeed some areas have cooled, but the general, global trend, averaging all sites together, is an increase.

[coolotter88 2]

thats true but paris's temperature average seems to be dropping from the 1940s. and yellowknife's highs don't look like they're increasing, its just random, what about the cold spell between 1980s and the 1990s? between 1943 and 1953? the temperatures went down from 1953 to 1970s.

you yourself can look at the graphs at www.giss.nasa.gov. as many as you want to satisfy you.

and exactly how much carbon dioxide has increased? do you know?guess, or look it up.

[Micah 16]

I have to admit, things are starting to get colder here in the past 3 years.

From the early 1900s to around 1995, Houston use to get snow and lots of it; however, after 1995, we didn't get snow all the way until 2003. In between those those years were some unusually warm winters and some even hotter summers. But now it is starting to go back into it's cooling trend ever since 2003 when we recieved snow again. In 2004, yet again, we got snow and an average temperate for summer. In 2004, the got almost a foot of snow and a colder than usual summer. In 2005, we had ice storms with some areas recieving snow, but the summer was cooler only because we had rain almost every single day from June 1st to mid-July.

There is actually a proven reason why we got hotter in the late 90s and early 2000s. In between those times, Houston had been using concrete at a record pace. So many skyscrapers and home were being build and many shopping centers were building build. Highways were expanding and asphalt roads were turning into concrete roads.

Scientist have proven that; however, they are currently unsure why it has cooled down in the past 3 years in Houston. They said that they expect this trend to last for possibly another 3 years, and that it will start climbing even higher in the record books for hotter temperatures.

[simwario 95]

Here in Northern Germany, the last summer was unusually varied in terms of temperatures and precipitation.

June started very cool with maximum temperatures only around 10 to 12°C and frequent showers everyday.

Then as the worldcup started it got warmer and warmer and this heat wave continued only with some minor cooler intervalls until the End of July.  The highs surpassed the 25°C mark almost every day, and on 8 days we passed the 30°C mark, four times more than avarage.

So this July was the warmest  July ever been recorded with a monthly average of 22°C.(more than 5 K above normal)

It was also pretty dry, with just a third of the normal precipitation.

August was the whole contrary,  it was slightly too warm (due to the heated water temperatures of the North Sea),  but it was twice as wet

as usual. It was raining almost everyday, often accompanied by thunderstorms.  The maximum temperature of 25.5°C, was one of the lowest maximums ever recorded in August.

September (which i actaully count  to autumn) was again like a copy of July,  too warm  17.3°C (3 K above normal) and to dry

only 10 mm of rain sofar (normal is 65 mm).  Even now in late September the temperature regularly reaches the 25°C mark which is

quite  unusual  giving the fact that in most september months the 25°C  mark won't be reached at all here.

Since the dry and sunny weather will probably continue in October it is quite likely that new records might also been set for the next month.

If this unusual warm pattern has to do with global warming, i'm not very sure about that.  In fact the last  winter months were a bit too cold here with lots of snow and icy days this year, so it might be also because our golf stream is weakening a bit, so that our weather is more continental influenced tight now.

[coolotter88 2]

the gulf stream isn't weakening yet...thats a long way off.

and anyway, sea levels cant rise much in these conditions.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html

sea ice melts, more sea ice forms.

[ExiL3 10]

Well all I am saying is that we shouldn't take a big storm, or differences in temerature from each year and go "MAN If it weren't for global warming and cars this would never had happened!!!". wake up! I mean, changes in temperature is normal, the amount of CO2 in the air now is not bad compared to what has been before, also the amount of green areas are big.

Ofcourse we have a impact on the earths climate, we are over 6 billion living creatures, and quite big at that too. we pollute, a lot, but much of the pollution is natural too. And the amount of O3 in the atmosphere is at a good level too now, the ozone layer is repairing it's self.

Don't get me wrong though, we need to stop polluting at the same rate that we are doing now... It's just that people who are "extremely green" have a thing about blowing this out of proportion...

fact: If people in Germany stopped using stand by modes on their PC's, and just shut them down after a day at work. Germany could close down 4 of their nuclear power plants. cool eh?

take care,

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 thats true but paris's temperature average seems to be dropping from the 1940s. and yellowknife's highs don't look like they're increasing, its just random, what about the cold spell between 1980s and the 1990s? between 1943 and 1953? the temperatures went down from 1953 to 1970s.

you yourself can look at the graphs at www.giss.nasa.gov. as many as you want to satisfy you.

and exactly how much carbon dioxide has increased? do you know?guess, or look it up.quote>

On the source that I posted, pg 1355, also there are many reliable research papers that also substantiate this.

Currently, CO2 has never been higher for AT LEAST the past 160,000 years.  before the industrial revolution, the concentration was around 250 parts per million.  We are currently at over 350 parts per million.  I don't just pull numbers out of thin air.

Interpreting the graphs are purely up to each person's perspective without the actual data points.  But having worked with thousands of graphs in my own research projects, the data for Paris and Yellowknife, if given a best fit line, will show an increasing temp.   There are going to be cool periods, scientists don't deny that some areas do have cool spells, but over the past 150 years, the grand majority of Earth has experienced a temperature increase.

I've actually taken the time to read a lot about Global Warming... I even have read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and even he's not denying anthropogenic forcing (the benefits is what he aruges).  I've read Earth in the Balance too, plus many many research articles.  I don't go making stuff up for sensationalism.  Its fact, the globe has been heating up.  Looking at ANY graph of C02 concentration and temperature, there is no doubt that they are directly linked, and there is no doubt that C02 concentration has increased (anyone who has the ability to measure CO2 concentration can do this themselves over a coarse of a decade).  So why all of a sudden is it in doubt that CO2 concentration and temperature increases are occuring by human elements.  Is it because we can't live our nice comfortable lives?  I admit, I'm certainly partly at fault as is any human (particularly the Developed world).  But the majority of resources used isn't determined by the average consumer.  If the world is to change, broad policy shifts and stiff penalties against corporations are the only way to decrease CO2 production.  We have to plan ahead before we pass a certain point.  Also, with the economies of Africa, South America, and Asia booming, what might the CO2 output be in 50 years when an additional 2 billion people start becoming industrialized?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/warm_stations/

This link shows the number of "warm" stations.  Notice the extreme number of stations that are recording a general increase in temps.  The few areas that are blank are generally in the Amazon, Sahara, Persian Gulf, and the Outback (and simulations have shown that global warming will affect higher latitudes than equatorial zones for now).  Even areas in the middle of Siberia are experiencing increases.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

This link shows what I've been talking about, global averages (particularly the 5 year averages which make trends far easier to see).

[coolotter88 2]

but since the 1950's we've only seen an increase of about 50 PPM

are you saying an increase of 50 molecules from 320 molecules of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming?

say we have a 1 megabyte hard drive, for the analogy 1 megabyte = 1000 kilobytes

nitrogen 780kb

oxygen 990kb

argon 999kb

carbon dioxide would take up 315 bytes. it has increased about 50 bytes. 50 bytes is not that much now is it?

are you familiar with the urban heat island effect? we look at the graphs from major cities and you say a rise in temperature is caused by global warming...how come you assume its global warming? what if its just a lot of concrete making it warmer?

[redmonkey 0]

Actually, that analogy that is there isn't completely right. Argon isn't 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and oxygen isnt 99, either. Besides, a computer's hard drive is different than the atmosphere. One ton of radioactive waste doesn't seem like a lot in a city that can have upwards of a billion tons of buildings, people, cars, etc, but if that one pound was spread out over the entire city, I bet there would be a bit of a problem with radiation poisioning.

Yes, the urban areas do heat up the land and air around them. That is a proven fact, and if you dont believe me, stand in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, its hotter than a field of grass.

This deal with the amont of carbon dioxide only rising after the 1950s, is based on many factors. First off, the oceans absorbed the rest of the carbon dioxide. Secondly, the earth didn't get warmer before that point because temperature changes lag behind CO2 levels. Also a proven fact is that aerosols, such as the airborne particulates from burning wood and coal actually contribute to Global Cooling, but those settle out within a few weeks. Carbon Dioxide on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere and continues to raise the temperature. The amount of areas that are burning wood is falling dramatically, and the Global Cooling only has a regional effect anyway.

Another thing, Global Warming will actually make certain regions cooler. With the warming of the oceans and the atmosphere, certian air patterns and sea currents will change, and sometimes the climate they affect will change too. (Europe will get colder if the Gulf Stream is affected,  the southern hemisphere will become hot and dry, and many others)

I have studied the affect of Global Warming on certain ecosystems, and its not something that we want to play around with.

By the way, the United States does NOT have the cheapest gasoline in the world. Saudi Arabia, Venezeula, and a few others have cheeper gas than we do. Look it up online.

[coolotter88 2]

I did not say that argon was 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, i meant the numbers to be how much the hard drive was filled.

that is true that certain areas will cool off but that is only after the gulf stream shuts off. before it does, the weather should be getting warmer throughout the world. and yes urban areas do heat up, everyone knows that, just can you prove that the rise in temperatures isn't caused by an increase of development rather than CO2?

[confused04 14]

An increase from 250 ppm to 350 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution IS a huge increase. Without Carbon dioxide, which is not a major constituent, our temperatures will be 40 degrees Celsius LOWER (Ward and Brownlee 2000). So this minor gas that makes up just hundreds per million parts pretty much defends us from being a frozen ball of ice. Also... to note that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution humans have increased ...

Carbon Dioxide by 30%

Methane 145%

Nitrous Oxide 15%

You can't just say that "oh wow, 50 molecules, big deal" cause if the ecosystem is used to "just 250 molecules", increasing it by 30% is going to be DEVASTATING. You can't take raw data and say because of the size of just 100 molecules that it therefore is not important. The increase in temperatures have been recorded in areas far from development, and ice core samples have shown that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temp, a trend that is seen today. Look at Venus, it has a large amount of CO2 and it has a runaway greenhouse effect that is undeniable. Can Siberia be explained for heating up? How bout Antartica? Rural America and Europe.

The hard drive analogy doesn't work cause you are making the assumptiong that all elements in the atmosphere contribute equally. Just cause a file might take up just 3 kb, doesnt mean that deleting it won't make a difference. You ignored the fact that its not the size of the file that matters, its function matters most.

[Ratieya455 1]

Instead of throwing numbers around like crazy, just think about logic. For instance, when you turn on the A/C in a building, the air conditioner pumps heat out. It has to do this in order to make the building cooler, and in doing so will add a small amount of heat to the outside air. Just the movement of heat will increase the temperature a little bit, when you consider how many buildings are air-conditioned this will add up to quite a bit. Then factor in the high amount of energy needed to run an A/C compressor and pump the coolant through the system, and tht electricity isn't free. Burning anything will always produce heat, and we burn a lot, especially for producing electricity.

You can't tell me that global warming is a myth, but there is no way of knowing what effect we are having on the planet by CO2 readings alone. We can't know, but we can know that it is a problem and try to cut down on burning things.

[daniel01 0]

Many if you think that Global Warming is a myth, not true, false, or conpiracy. That's all right what you think, and no one can judge what you have said, it's your own theory.   

I believe that the world has a problem with global warming, because already signs are showing,
Like for example in Australia, its nearly the end of September, and already a massive bushfire had started, around Sydney.
(claims of arson)

---

On brink of worst fire season ever

Australia is on the brink of a horror bushfire season, a bushfire expert has warned.

With the Bureau of Meteorology reporting the hottest, driest August on record, these extreme conditions, teamed with a severe drought across most of the country, is posing a major threat to people living in bush areas, Kevin O'Loughlin from the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre, in Melbourne, said today.

Mr O'Loughlin said the massive fires, which blazed across NSW at the weekend - combined with bad fires in Victoria last week and the 200 fires already reported in Tasmania this month - could be a taste of things to come.

"Just looking at what we've seen already, this is a major concern," Mr O'Loughlin said.

"It's a major concern that fire seasons seem to be starting earlier and lasting longer.

"We've got to get a greater understanding on this, on the frequency of fires, the earlier start to the season and if there's any connection to climate change."  Mr O'Loughlin said the dangers were heightened by the increasing number of people living in areas at risk of bushfire.

"If you're talking about the driest August on record and the warmest August on record and you set that against a period of drought, then you would have to be concerned that this could be a bad fire season," Mr O'Loughlin said.  
"The agencies, no doubt, will be taking precautions and would be stressing that people who lived in properties at risk of bushfires make very, very serious preparations for potentially a very bad season."  Meanwhile, Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites said 200 seasonal firefighters - more than the usual number - were being hired and were starting work one month earlier this year to help prepare for the fire season.
"We have been doing fuel reduction burning and seeking to do it earlier, but the conditions are so dry and so adverse that we're already having to wind down fuel reduction burning," Mr Thwaites told reporters.  Firefighters were now in the process of building trails and fire breaks in key areas.

"We are very concerned that this summer will be one of our worst bushfire risks ever.  "The state is extremely dry. We've had 10 years of below-average rainfall. Areas like the Otways and the Dandenongs, which weren't burnt in the 2003 fires, are particularly at risk." 

---

You will see that i have underlined some bits to the story (Not the heading though)
August was the driest on record. and that Many states in Australia are extremely dry.

And that in early spring already we have had 30°C days, which, usually in spring we should have 20°C - 25°C days instead of having tempeatures in the mid 20's - 30's

Here is a story of the Sydney Bushfires that struck yesterday.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20470275-661,00.html

If you read you will see that Sydney went through strong winds, with a 33°C
It's not just in Australia, it's happening all around the world. 
In the U.S.A they just came out of the hottest summer on record, in the west (California) there are massive bushfires, and in the east they are having massive storms, which have flooded areas, with more storms coming.

Thsi is my belief on Global Warming is,
A Myth, Maybe, True, Maybe how can we be positive that it is really happening?
Personlly i believe that Global Warming is happening.
and all these disasters are just a Coincidence?

i believe not, and you can believe what you believe, i'm not here to judge, i'm just here to be friendly, and believe my own theory's. (Don't take it the wrong way though)

daniel01

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Ratieya455 Instead of throwing numbers around like crazy, just think about logic. For instance, when you turn on the A/C in a building, the air conditioner pumps heat out. It has to do this in order to make the building cooler, and in doing so will add a small amount of heat to the outside air. Just the movement of heat will increase the temperature a little bit, when you consider how many buildings are air-conditioned this will add up to quite a bit. Then factor in the high amount of energy needed to run an A/C compressor and pump the coolant through the system, and tht electricity isn't free. Burning anything will always produce heat, and we burn a lot, especially for producing electricity.

You can't tell me that global warming is a myth, but there is no way of knowing what effect we are having on the planet by CO2 readings alone. We can't know, but we can know that it is a problem and try to cut down on burning things.

quote>

Unforutantely, that logic only applies to a closed system.  Had this logic been true, we'd still be a massive molten ball and the temperature of Earth would be a result of 5 billion years of solar heating.  The temps generated on Earth do radiate back into space (hence why clearer nights are cooler than those with clouds generally cause heat is insulated and kept within our atmosphere instead of leaving).  CO2 keeps this heat in as opposed to letting it radiate out.  This is generally considered a good thing as we'd be rediculously cooler and in a permanant ice age otherwise.  The amount of solar energy recieved on the surface of the Earth is far higher than the all the energy man consumes daily.  The problem is that more and more of this solar energy remains trapped in our atmosphere raising the temps.  What we do energetically speaking is nothing compared to the sun and if we even keep a small portion of it within our atmosphere that we shouldn't, there will be a noticeable change in temperature.

[coolotter88 2]

but airplane contrails are also proven to keep our planet warmer by up to 3 degrees Celsius!

can you prove that an increase of 100 ppm of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is caused by carbon dioxide? with the huge impact of contrails on the temperature, how can we tell whether if our "global warming" is caused by CO2 or just lots of red eye flights?

also "Global warming" wouldn't really cause droughts, austrailia's drought was just any regular drought.

Besides, the interior of antarctica has cooled alot, about .7 degrees celsius. Antarctica isn't melting away yet.