Global Warming

[marc 13]

You know, after naively arguing my opinions in the "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense" thread, I just realized "What's the point?" None of us, no matter how much we argue and flame, are going to convince our opponents of our beliefs- we're all very much set in our own ways and there's no point in trying to convert an anonymous internet poster.

And furthermore, none of us are scientists, researchers, or climatologists, so our opinions and conclusions are worth zilch in the world of science. Let's just leave the research to the actual researchers. After all, a bunch of sc4 addicts like us have nothing useful to offer to the study of this phenomenon anyways! Since this debate won't be ending anytime soon, we might as well save our energy for later, or redirect it to something more productive.

[fukuda 351]

My university, UPC (Polytechnical University of Catalonia, just reverse the vowel), where I study chemical engineering, gives crucial priority to the environment. We are not (only) learning how to build huge polluting plants, but also how to significantly reduce pollutant emissions without being unaffordable for enterprises. Reducing NO2, SO2 and especially CO2, which is taken as a thing to be banned of the heavy industry (we can reconvert CO2 in way less harmful substances). All the teachers and the direction of the centre have no doubt about what substance is largely causing Global Warming, and anyway it is very important to teach the importance of the environment to the next generation of engineers. It seems that industrials are very interested in reducing emissions if there is a possible cheap way to reduce them. Don't forget that, without industry there would be nothing of what you're using right now, researching new ways of producing less CO2 will also solve some of the most worrying future problems, the principal causes of CO2 pollution, coal and petroleum, will disappear in a short term, and heh, without coal there's no steel, without petroleum there's no plastic, asphalt, oils... Finding a solution for the CO2 problem also means solving that problems, efforts should be doubled to avoid future crisis. I know that you don't like taxes, but be a bit gentle to your descendance.

[schm0 27]

Ok, I'm throwing my hat back in this thread (after a while)

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

[Original post edited for brevity]

I am going to say and stand by the point of

GLOBAL WARMING is NOTHING but ALL HOT AIR used by the Green Lobby (with political agendas) to scare everyone silly.quote>

Is that the job of the UN? To scare everyone silly? It is not a scare tactic, it is a system of global awareness. This isn't chicken little we're talking about, this is a subject that an overwhelming majority of scientists recognize as being a real and existing phenomenon.

Climatic Change is REAL however 95% is natural and 5% human made!quote>

Estimations as far as how much impact we have have proved to be varied and inconsistent. Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects.

So let me post the REAL facts

I start with an piece from www.nzherald.com that was posted on Climate Change

quote>

Can't find the article in which this was originally posted... could you link the article itself, not the front page of the website?

Anthony Farrell

Ten facts about global warming: 

1. Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.quote>

This does not mean that temperatures around the globe are not increasing. Britain is not the thermometer of the world.

2. Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.quote>

Natural warming and cooling cycles continue throughout history. These have been directly linked to the levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. (There are many sources for this information, so I won't bother posting another hockey-stick graph or source.) The levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are unprecedented.

3. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.quote>

Water vapor is not produced in large proportions by industrial and man-made sources. The vapor is a natural product of the process by which earth's oceans evaporate. Without water vapor, we would have no clouds. Water vapor in the atmosphere is what created a suitable environment for life millenia ago. We would have to expose our oceans and lakes to huge amounts of volcanic activity (heat) to pump as much water vapor into the air as we do carbon dioxide.

4. Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.quote>

Nobody disputes that. It's the level of warming produced by this effect that is being discussed.

5. Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.quote>

This is completely outrageuous. Please view this video: Is the Earth getting hotter? by NASA.

2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year

NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels

6. The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.quote>

See the above links. These temperatures are recorded GLOBALLY by satellite, not by ground-based instruments. Thus, your claims of the "only evidence" is wholly incorrect.

7. Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.quote>

I've been thinking about this one forever. Do any of you play SimCity? It's this really great SIMULATION of building a city. There are tons of things you can do in the game. However, there are drawbacks that make the game somewhat unrealistic. Does this mean the game doesn't accurately give a good representation of city building? (I would answer no, even though it does have things we would all like to modify and adjust to make it better and more realistic.)

Now, taking a step back, this game is probably 1/100th the size and complexity of the computer simulations used to come to these conclusions. They are programmed by SCIENTISTS who understand the field, not a bunch of game programmers. They are so huge and complex, they are processed by supercomputers capable of running laps around our everyday PCs. So, are you saying that all simulations can never accurately recreate our environment to any degree, or are you saying just simulations about our earth are patently false?

8. The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.quote>

I've already addressed the second half of this statement, but as far as the cost of changing our economy, there is no price tag that can be put on sustainability and saving the Earth. How much does the balance of the global environment cost? Conversely, doing nothing and continuing this trend costs absolutely nothing in the short term, but extraordinary amounts in the future. (Please see the recent report from the IPCC on the IPCC's website.)

9. The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectivesquote>

Please cite a source for these allegations. I have heard nothing of "corruption" or the "doctoring" of documents. Also, please tell me how the UN's IPCC has somehow remained in the spotlight in light of these allegations. If it was so "notorious," then the credibility of this organization would be undermined and this would be reflected in international media, which it has not.

10. The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems.quote>

I believe that is what the IPCC is trying to do... Are you calling their efforts irrational?

Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.quote>

The Statement by Atmosphere Scientists on Greenhouse Warming: 47 signatures.

The Leipzig Declaration: 105 signatures.

The Oregon Petition: ???

The last one I have found all sorts of conflicting reports from 17,000 to 200. It seems the organization didn't screen the petitioners or verify their credentials. Many who have been contacted said they would not sign the document today. At any rate, these signatories represent "a small fraction of the climatological community."

That can be found here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10420297 but it becomes pay for view after the  28/1/07

Now I will back that as being in The University of Auckland studying Geography and Politics, I have access to readings, research and material to make my own independent claim and statements in this sorry saga

I see someone posted a Temperture:CO2 Chart and say there is a link, congrats you have just shown the infamous Hockey Stick Model which we are told and hammered by our lecturers to IGNORE at all costs.quote>

Huh? Are you telling me that professors out there are telling you that a graph that was confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences is incorrect?

That model has been discredited so many times for woeful wrongness as the models had far to many variables in them to make a credible conclusion.quote>

It has been discredited precisely 0 times.

This is the REAL story

CO2 is the 2nd biggest greenhouse gas after water vapor, her volume is in saturation point in the atmosphere so adding more CO2 will do NOTHING in rasing temperature, Solar Radition (sun) is the main cause as well as the fluxing water vapour in the atmosphere. Also I have proposed a research paper with the university looking into CO2:Water Vapour fluxes and temperature fluxes seen over the last 65 million years. I believe if anything we are doing the planet a FAVOUR pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.quote>

I suggest you look at the planet Venus and tell me the effect of unabated and uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions might have on our planet.

Explaining: Plants in the world are only receiving 1/2 the amount of CO2 needed for full optimum growth, green house experiments show that increased CO2 = better photosynthesis = better plant growth = better food production = better O2 output = better quality of life as more food is around.quote>

I agree that we need to plant more vegetation, instead of rampantly destroying it. But increasing CO2 levels would have drastic and devastating impacts on our environment.

With water vapour in the atmosphere, studys on that and her relation to green house gases are not conclusive enough and water vapour fuels STORMS etc, might want to look there.quote>

Yet you claim that water vapor is the only reason we are experiencing climate change, via these "inconclusive" results.

We just have no idea what the climate can do, evidence suggest Earth has been warmer than now, sea levels higher, ice caps non existant and vice versa, our models have far too many variables and politics now contaminates sound independent science.quote>

I am sick of conspiracy theories. So all of the governments of the UN are in a conspiracy? Stop purporting that the wool is being pulled over the world's eyes and pull it off of your own. Tell me how a global conspiracy, necessitating the duping of millions of citizens, is possible!?

Yes we have to move away from oil, but not due to this scare mongering

I can go on and bring sea levels into here but I won't yet apart from the sea is rising at 0.2cm a year while most land masses rise 0.3cm a year, so you work that out! I'll post a piece on sea levels soon

I'll be watching here closely

quote>

It is not scare mongering, it is scientific reporting. And if you care to continue to use such language, the only thing you will be doing is hoax mongering.

[arough_impact 0]

Global warming scares me.

[daniel01 0]

A news story in Australia about Global Warming has popped up again, but this time the UN explained that we would be more prome to disease as the Country dries up.

---

Disease rising as Australia dries:

CYCLONES and tropical diseases will become more common and more people will die in heatwaves as Australia dries out, according to a new UN report.

The Australian and New Zealand chapter of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was released today, and it does not make happy reading.

As well reiterating that the level of the Murray-Darling river system would drop dramatically and crops would struggle as climate change intensified, it also said Aborigines would suffer in an increasingly dry continent.

The IPCC, set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program, is a collaboration between more than 2500 climate change scientists and 130 governments.

"Australia is very much the drying continent," said Dr Jim Salinger, a lead author for the IPCC's Australasian chapter, today.

Natural hazards, such as a rise in tropical diseases and cyclones were expected to become more common in coming years, resulting in more deaths.

"More health-related deaths in terms of heatwaves and more exposure to pest-borne diseases such as dengue fever. On the coast of course, particularly Queensland, exposure to ...tropical cyclones," Dr Salinger said.

By 2050, 3200-5200 more heat-related deaths per year were expected and up to 1.4 million more people exposed to dengue fever.

Extreme rainfall, flooding and salt inundation of freshwater supplies, changes to mangroves and fire regimes, as well as coastal erosion and rises in sea levels could cause problems to some Aboriginal groups.

Dr Salinger said large areas of the country were likely to have less rainfall and soil moisture. 

"This has dramatic implications for crop, pastoral and grazier land production over much of southern and eastern Australia. So they are looking at very serious consequences there."

He said there would also be a projected drop in Australia's snow coverage by 20-85 per cent by 2050. 

He also warned that climate changes would likely lead to even bigger reductions in the amount of water in the already stressed Murray-Darling river system, used extensively by irrigators.  

"By 2050 ... the Murray-Darling flow could decline in the order of one quarter," he said.

Courtsey: news.com.au

more of this story is found here at

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21532519-2,00.html

daniel01

 

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: marcszar ...

And furthermore, none of us are scientists, researchers, or climatologists, so our opinions and conclusions are worth zilch in the world of science. Let's just leave the research to the actual researchers. quote>

Actually you might be surprised what some of our members do in their working lives. There seem to be quite a few scientists and engineers who are members here and read the forums.

I find the topic of global warming interesting and as a result of reading things here I've been finding lots of interesting scientific articles to read.

I found this editorial to be interesting (among lots of other articles):

Ice and History

Donald Kennedy and Brooks Hanson (24 March 2006) Science 311 (5768), 1673. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1127485]

Editorials are interesting because they usually review the articles in the issue, and discuss the overall implications, usually in a more simplified and entertaining way than the full articles.

Although most full articles in scientific journals are subscription only, you can usually access the abstracts, and sometimes the editorials. The online ones also often let you see what other authors have cited the article, so you can view subsequent work and related discussion.

So there's really no need to take anyone at their word, you can always check out the information and decide for yourself.

A word of caution though, you will often find apparently conflicting views in the scientific literature. This is not unusual, this is how scientists work, and how they decide if something is accurate. An author does their research and publishes their findings in an article (if it gets through peer review). Other scientists read it, try to find any flaws in it and then publish their own articles in response (if they get through peer review). In this way they discuss the evidence objectively and reach conclusions that are more likely to be sound.

So its not really unexpected to find different view points in the literature.

[Shingure 56]

Ever see this. This is the chart of temperatrues and CO2 being released into the atmosphere. I bet you have seen it dozens of timers. Now the the thing is about the ice age thing that another was talking about is well ahead of us if the amount of CO2 being released is also relaxed.

Also there is more pollutants that do the following...


- Carbon Monoxide
- Methane
- Nitrous Oxide
-Carbon Dioxide
Just to name a few ( 4 actually )

  
If you read the caption at this bottom of the above pic you'll get the idea and what do you know  even though it started increasing in the 1750's many began to rise as the Industrial Revolution came into play as early as 1780's and as late as the 1840's.

Edit: The period of the "Little Ice Age" ended around 1850.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I know that this may not be the best source of information since everyone says that the information is false but if you look it up you will pretty much get the same thing.

[daniel01 0]

Really interesting Shingure the pictures show it in more detail

daniel01

[crazyyaya 4]

Very interesting pics, look at that huge cloud of pollution over China

[schm0 27]

Nice to see it in the right forum.

[Shingure 56]

So is Global Warming there. The answer is yes. Whatever scientist says that this is part of a natural cycle is inncorrect. There is proof in cities like Beijing and Mexico City and in India is where the worst urban pollution is in the world.

Methane rates and Cabon dioxide rates show that it seasonally changes also with the breathing of plants. As so... You can look at it closely on the blue line and see it yourself. Trust me. I think that this argument is over. It's there and we see it. Ecspeacially in developing countries. 

Also Schmo's post ( Before the last one stating many points) about the tempurature warming was right to add within the past 10 years all of the years have fell into the catergory of hottest years for Earth and the hottest year was 2 year earlier. Many expect that this will be the hottest year for earth but we will have to wait and see.

Now this may sound hypocritic but instead of talking we should take steps to reduce the amount of pollutants thickening the atmosphere . Plant trees. Use transit . The littles whings in large number makes a difference on a global scale.

[coolotter88 2]

but as I pointed out in the other thread, It's very interesting to see that CO2 is kind of like a feedback loop where the temperature rises FIRST then the CO2 levels rise and causes temperatures to rise more, causing CO2 to increase. Very interesting.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 but as I pointed out in the other thread, It's very interesting to see that CO2 is kind of like a feedback loop where the temperature rises FIRST then the CO2 levels rise and causes temperatures to rise more, causing CO2 to increase. Very interesting.quote>

If you are referring to the first graph posted by Shingure, I don't think you can make that inference just from the graph. The resolution of the x axis is not sufficient to do so. If you look at the scale on the x axis it is in increments of 50 000 years. You would not be able to determine with any accuracy if the effects were offset by only 1000 or 2000 years for example as the graph is not sufficiently detailed. You would need the raw data to determine that, and even then you would need to be extremely careful.

In any case, when I took the graph above into an image editing program, blew it up and put grid lines on it, most of the major peaks correleated precisely (there were a few exceptions, but not in one predominant direction)

The graph itself would also be visually deceptive unless you were very careful, as the eye is drawn by the diagonal lines and assumes they are closer to vertical than. For example at a casual glance, this may look like temperature peaks are preceding the carbon dioxide peaks.

In any case such a graph is designed to represent a fairly simple trend but not in great detail.

[coolotter88 2]

so it is! my eyes were playing tricks on me!

[Shingure 56]

But still. Does it show that Temps and CO2 levels rise?

[Palpatine001 57]

Shingure: The satellite image is true but the graphs are misleading. 

As I keep saying the climate data collecting is narrow both spatially and temporally, meaning we have only gather most data over the last 150 years and then again that is unreliable! 85% of our climate stations are either poorly maintained or are in the smack BANG IN THE MIDDLE of an urban area. Those graphs shown there are taken from stations that suffer from urban heat island effect so OF COURSE the graph will shoot up as a city intensifies!

CFC along with Carbon is an actual coolant as methane can act as one as well as they are heavy molecules!

Also YOU GUYS KEEP FORGETTING TO MENTION WATER VAPOUR! It is by far the biggest green house gas by volume - it makes up 1% of the total atmosphere compared to 0.16% for CO2 and HUGE amounts of the stuff is released by natural and human sources yet we don't study it! And like CO2, the natural environment cycles the carbon and water through the water and carbon cycles!

schm0

You seem to be popping up everywhere! No matter as I will keep debating you until the very end!

Yes the UN and the IPCC love to scare people, its how you get the masses to do your bidding, it is a simple power economic!

Satellites only provide a very small snap shot temporally, they have not been around for over 100,000 years so what they pick up is only from a very small time frame. While they might show things are getting warmer, we are still calculating from where. Urban heat islands pump out a lot of heat in which that can spill over into the surrounding environment that can skew at satellites data collection, the Pacific warms and cools as well as the amount of heat that our biomass can produce durring repiration. Also water vapour as a the larges green house gas can cause localised apparent heating - the Oasis effect! Also radiation and albedio has to be taken into account. Shortwave radiation from the sun has increased in our modern existance, increase in shortwave radiation equals more energy entering the Earth and that can induce warming. Also with intense urbanisation, more longwave radiation is being back released into the atmosphere from Earth and is then further back scattered to the ground causing Satellites to think Earth is heating up as well. Albedio, or reflectivity, ice, deserts and urban areas are great mirrors in reflecting shortwave radiation back into space, and remember this is electro-magnetic radiation so there is heat as an off product, off products that Satellights will detect. So in essence our Satellites are just as reliable as climate stations affected by urban heat island effect!  

Even NASA and the National Academy of Sciences get it wrong, and will usually admit it and work out better ways in data collection and analysis, it depends if they get over their pride and conservatism which is often hard to shake - isn't it?  And remember those instituions do get private funding - need I say more!

Here is an article from the NZ Herald today http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10433692

Garth George: Ignore all that hot air about global warming

If you believe all the garbage you've been reading, seeing and hearing lately about global warming, then you probably still believe the Earth is flat.

And if you believe that the cause is human-produced CO2 emissions and that you personally are somehow responsible - your car is too big and your seaside bach is likely to be inundated any old day - then you probably still believe those ancient charts in which large areas are marked "Here be dragons."

This scaremongering, doom-saying global warming industry is shaping up to be the biggest rort of the decade and, if it goes on much longer, of the 21st century.

Because, as Richard S. Lindzen wrote lately in the Washington Post, the long-range predictions issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been made "using inherently untrustworthy climate models similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now".

"The current alarm," writes the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Newsweek, "rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week."

 

Top Kiwi earth scientist Bob Carter, writing in last weekend's London Sunday Telegraph, points out that a study of core samples taken from the seabed in the southwest Pacific reveals that over hundreds of thousands of years climate has changed ceaselessly in either direction - sometimes cooling sometimes warming - often for reasons not fully understood.

"Yet," writes the professor at Queensland's James Cook University, "we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news.

"Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must 'stop climate change' by reducing human CO2 emissions."

Professor Carter, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, says most of these groups get their information from the IPCC.

However, he writes, "many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to Governments is political and not scientific."

"Although at least $50 billion has been spent on climate research, the science arguments for a dangerous human influence on global warming have, if anything, become weaker since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988. Yet the rhetoric of IPCC alarm has been successively ramped up ... "

Professor Carter suggests that the "global warming" alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere relies on surface thermometer records, whose accuracy he doubts.

Rather, he writes, the most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years has come from satellite measurements, and those indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - the very period in which human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly.

"The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."

Having pointed out at some length that the IPCC boffins' scenarios rely heavily on thoroughly unscientific circumstantial "evidence", Professor Carter writes: "So the evidence for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely weak."

"That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978 ... indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change ... is now negated."

And: "The environmental catchphrase of the moment is 'sustainability'. It is therefore a good question to ask how much longer politicians, responding to pressure from the IPCC and other lobby groups [read Greens], can sustain the fiction that dangerous human-caused climate change is upon us."

As for me, I'll keep on driving my 4-litre Falcon, use as much water and electricity as I want, take as many airline flights as I please, and keep the woodburner well stoked throughout the winter.

And if there's a youngster out there who can be bothered, I'd be obliged if you would cut this column out and put it away somewhere to be brought out and reread in 2040.

I doubt very much that I'll still be here, so please say on my behalf: "I told you so."

---

While you are there please read others pieces from others as well especially this one

Dr Erich S Bloodaxe
99% of the hot air on both sides of the global warming debate comes from people who have no training in meteorology, geology, or any other related field. Everybody wants to weigh in as if their opinion makes any sort of sense when they don't have the training to even understand the myriad of interlinked issues that come together to affect the global climate. One good example of that is those who compare forecast models for rainfall with warming trend data for centuries in the future. That's like saying if you can't figure out what any given person will do in a tense situation, you can't predict mob behaviour, which just isn't a logical statement. As a PhD in geology, I have the good sense to realize I don't have enough understanding of the field to form a snap opinion, yet every politician out there will come along and tell you it's rubbish or gospel. Hot air indeed. Time will provide an answer, but it's always best to be prepared for disasters, whether they happen or not. I'd rather take steps to possibly stave off a future problem that may not happen than get caught flat footed when one crops up in which no one believes.

And that is very true

I am a qualified Geographier from the University of Auckland  (done a Bachelor of Science and Arts) and am in the progress of reaching Masters then PhD and agree whole heartedly with Dr Bloodaxe

We are missing the point, I will stand by the fact that climate change can NOT BE STOPPED and that we MUST MITIGATE FOR (thats FOR) CLIMATIC CHANGE. Building on Coasts and floodplains and removing vegetation from hills in asking for trouble, unsustainable farming and lack of fore planning is asking for trouble, our out of control population growth and poverty is asking for trouble!

Therefore don't build you mansion on a sand dune or sand spit, allow for the fact  town near a river will flood in a heavy storm, mix your farming with trees, crops an animals, the cows will love the shade in the hot sun while the trees off set CO2, hold the soil and absorb organic cow crap fertiliser!

Hurricanes and snow storms will be around, don't get caught out like New Orleans did through lack of mitiagtion (and YES I HAVE BEEN THERE AFTER KATRINA and my heart bled) 

And often the best defence against the ocean is nature herself, no man made engineering as humans always lose against mother nature!

---

And for a Pacific and New Zealand Example: Sea levels are rising 1.8mm a year FACT, the Pacific Islands are SINKING: FACT, New Zealand experiences tectonic uplift: FACT.

Now I know you are waiting to jump on me for that but here is the REAL FACTS

The PI nations are sinking GEOLOGICALLY 2.1mm a year - their central volcanos are collasping

New Zealand goes through 3.6mm tectonic uplift a year so realistically sealevel is FALLING!

I stand by my arguements as a Geographier!

[IDS2 3,346]

OK. Think about global warming this way. It's a bad thing. Less resources, lots of extinctions, odd weather...but is it helpful at all? Not that I can think of. So that proves that this is a majorly negative thing. Of course, we already knew that, so on to another point: global warming was worse back in medieval times than it is now. The ice age ended with heat waves, but only this time it's permanent. So until we can patch up that hold, we have to accept things the way they are. The fact that oil is scarce and ethanol is no better, resources are draining...we have to do something about that! But is it too far to return? No! Absolutely not! Anyone can help. Conservation is good (I'm no tree hugger, but I have to agree with it) and everyone should recycle. Reduce and reuse! What do you expect to do, wait indoors? No! You can help by replacing your incandescent light bulbs, by announcing your ideas. Now, don't get me wrong, taking the bus is great but it doesn't really do anything! Buses run on gasoline just like cars do! And given thefact that they're 54 times larger they emit about as much CO2 as there would be anyways if you didn't take the bus! Think about the logic, it doesn't help that much. Wat is needed is non-fuel transport, like magnet trains and other stuff of the sort. Rocketships, jet planes, they burn so much fuel that it's almost unnecessary. But we're at a point that we can't survive without oil! No, we aren't: look at history, everyone was just fine before 1900! So that leaves one option: reinvent. We need an alternate source. Solar power? Unreliable. Wind power? Unreliable. Hydroelectricity? Better, but still unreliable. More and more people turning to coal and natural gas. And, of course, that has to change! But how? Wind power only works when air moves through the turbine. So why not move the turbine through the air? An air-powered car sounds like the best option. It's free, it's efficient, and best of all: it doesn't use any resources and gives the air right back. That woiuld only work for ground vehicles though. So what can we do for air transport and water transport? We'll just have to see.

[schm0 27]

I am going to try to keep my posts short and sweet this time.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

Shingure: The satellite image is true but the graphs are misleading. 

As I keep saying the climate data collecting is narrow both spatially and temporally, meaning we have only gather most data over the last 150 years and then again that is unreliable! 85% of our climate stations are either poorly maintained or are in the smack BANG IN THE MIDDLE of an urban area. Those graphs shown there are taken from stations that suffer from urban heat island effect so OF COURSE the graph will shoot up as a city intensifies!

quote>

You're trying to tell me that they place 85% global climate weather stations in the center of every major city in the world? You are not only incorrect, but extremely gullible. The data was collected from stations all around the world, not just in major cities. You think the scientists who collected this data actually might miss an important "fact" like that? I can see it now:

"Bob, did you get the data from Manhattan?!"

"Why yes, Jim. Compared with the data collected from Los Angeles, Cairo, Hong Kong and London I'd say that we must certainly conclude that the world's climate is rising!"

"But what about the data from the Rockies in Colorado, the Galapogos Islands and New Zealand?"

"Pshhh, Jim... didn't you know? Those places are entirely insignificant on a global scale. Surely as a global climatologist, you know this. Don't bother me with such trifling matters. Did you make me some coffee yet?"

{Grudgingly} "Yes, sir."

CFC along with Carbon is an actual coolant as methane can act as one as well as they are heavy molecules!quote>

Is that why the world banned chloroflourocarbons? Because it was cooling the climate? Where are you getting this!?

Also YOU GUYS KEEP FORGETTING TO MENTION WATER VAPOUR! It is by far the biggest green house gas by volume - it makes up 1% of the total atmosphere compared to 0.16% for CO2 and HUGE amounts of the stuff is released by natural and human sources yet we don't study it! And like CO2, the natural environment cycles the carbon and water through the water and carbon cycles!

quote>

Please read the data I have posted in this forum. You are mistaken. [<--SOURCE] Water vapor makes up a vast majority of the molecules in the atmosphere, and it is the reason why you and I are living and breathing. Without the water vapor in the air, we would melt or freeze and experience no greenhouse effect at all. Please tell me what man-made influence produces water vapor on a "HUGE" scale. Water vapor is produced by the evaporation of the world's natural water sources, not humans. (The source I cited above is actually a refutation to the popular opinion of global warming... it does not mention that the slight deviation from the delicate balance of our Earth's atmosphere could effect our global climate in drastic ways.)

Nature can only recycle as much carbon dioxide as there are enough plants in the world. Increased warming and deforestation reduce the amount of oxygen-producing plants in the world.

schm0

You seem to be popping up everywhere! No matter as I will keep debating you until the very end!quote>

Wherever there is injustice, you will find me.

Wherever there is suffering, I'll be there.

Wherever liberty is threatened, you will find...

SCHM0!

Yes the UN and the IPCC love to scare people, its how you get the masses to do your

bidding, it is a simple power economic!quote>

This is a place for scientific and rational discussion. If you want to spread lies and conspiracy theories, start another thread. Again: WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE WILD IDEAS!? Stop reading the National Enquirer and pick up an issue of National Geographic. Or maybe a newspaper. Anything without monkey babies, aliens, celebrity gossip and GLOBAL U.N. SCARE TACTIC CONSPIRACIES!!!

Satellites only provide a very small snap shot temporally, they have not been around for over 100,000 years so what they pick up is only from a very small time frame. While they might show things are getting warmer, we are still calculating from where. Urban heat islands pump out a lot of heat in which that can spill over into the surrounding environment that can skew at satellites data collection...quote>

Then the pictures shown above would have small dots over major cities. YOU ARE INCORRECT.

...the Pacific warms and cools as well as the amount of heat that our biomass can produce durring repiration. quote>

Please see the above comment on these stupid HEAT ISLANDS. You are wrong. If you are not, please cite your sources.

Also water vapour as a the larges green house gas can cause localised apparent heating - the Oasis effect!quote>

HUH?! Please cite a source (or at least some more information!) instead of some vague theoretical concept.

Also radiation and albedio has to be taken into account.quote>

What does my libido have to do with it? I know I got it going on, but my girlfriend is the only recipient of any local "warming" if you know what I mean.

Shortwave radiation from the sun has increased in our modern existance, increase in shortwave radiation equals more energy entering the Earth and that can induce warming. Also with intense urbanisation, more longwave radiation is being back released into the atmosphere from Earth and is then further back scattered to the ground causing Satellites to think Earth is heating up as well.quote>

Right. The sun is shooting shortwave laser beams at the Earth and reflecting them back into our satellites to confuse them. Again, please cite a source proving that shortwave radiation alters satellite data.

Albedio, or reflectivity, ice, deserts and urban areas are great mirrors in reflecting shortwave radiation back into space, and remember this is electro-magnetic radiation so there is heat as an off product, off products that Satellights will detect. So in essence our Satellites are just as reliable as climate stations affected by urban heat island effect!  quote>

If this is what you are talking about, this process has been in effect for millenia. Therefore, it does not explain the recent increase in carbon dioxide and temperature (nor their correlation.) Besides, the ice caps and glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate and would, by your definition, REDUCE the temperatures of the globe due to the lesser amount of ice reflecting such radiation back into the atmosphere.

Even NASA and the National Academy of Sciences get it wrong, and will usually admit it and work out better ways in data collection and analysis, it depends if they get over their pride and conservatism which is often hard to shake - isn't it?  And remember those instituions do get private funding - need I say more!quote>

So NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N., the E.P.A., all the nations that signed the Kyoto treaty and the VAST majority of climatology scientists (and hundreds of other organizations) are all conspiring to trick the world into putting less pollution into the air? And their motive is money for RESEARCH!?

Here is an article from the NZ Herald today :

EDITORIAL DELETED

quote>

This is NOT an article. It is an EDITORIAL. Therefore, it is entirely fictional opinion, and not factual information.

While you are there please read others pieces from others as well especially this one

 

Dr Erich S Bloodaxe

{EDITORIAL DELETED}

quote>

Please post facts, not EDITORIALS.

And for a Pacific and New Zealand Example: Sea levels are rising 1.8mm a year FACT, the Pacific Islands are SINKING: FACT, New Zealand experiences tectonic uplift: FACT.quote>

FACT: Tectonic activity in the Pacific is the result of plate tectonics and the eruption of volcanoes, that RISE out of the ocean to become islands. Hawaii was created this way.

Now I know you are waiting to jump on me for that but here is the REAL FACTS

The PI nations are sinking GEOLOGICALLY 2.1mm a year - their central volcanos are collasping

New Zealand goes through 3.6mm tectonic uplift a year so realistically sealevel is FALLING!

I stand by my arguements as a Geographier!

 

quote>

[kibblewitbit 0]

i wouldnt exactly call that short and sweet^^^

and people (cough cough Shm0) please stop taking apart every single post its just a waste of space and it also wastes the readers time as well as your own

[rjkrox 0]

But I mean even if global warming isn't real, it still can't be good for the planet. I say why take the risk?

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wouldnt exactly call that short and sweet^^^

and people (cough cough Shm0) please stop taking apart every single post its just a waste of space and it also wastes the readers time as well as your ownquote>

So... let me understand this correctly:

Posting a long rant containing falsehoods and uncorroborated facts is perfectly fine.

But taking that post and refuting the evidence is a "waste of space" and "wastes the readers time?"

Why is it when I take the time to destroy someone's "evidence" for a global warming hoax or conspiracy I'm criticized for bothering to do so in the first place? This is a forum for discussion, so I discuss. If the length of my posts is a problem for you to take the time to read, then perhaps listening to what I have to say is not for you. Personally, I enjoy dropping intellectual bombs on the "purported facts" of global warming conspiracists and hoax promoters. I enjoy it. It's fun to me. I like to argue and debate issues that are important to me. Nuff said.

[hymewales 13]

Global warming and pollution are two seperate issues...and yes, pollution needs to be reduced.

According to the beloved graph,  the Earth has been warmer in periods than before now. CO2 has also been increasing since the Roman Empire. Are we to blame the Roman Empire for starting Global Warming? All this graph shows me is that CO2 increases and temperature increases are part of a natural cycle that has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years. Is there a clear correlation? There are clear periods when the correlation is not what it seems. Like right after 125 thousand years ago when CO2 was constant, but temperatures were still decreasing. Or even later after year 0, the CO2 spikes but temperatures jump up and down and not spiking as in earlier periods with CO2.  This means, there are other factors...

Schm0

To get an accurate determination of human impact on global warming, you have to factor in other events like the Earth's orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the Earth's weakened magnetic field. <See page 13 of this thread for references>. No studies have been done to include every variable into the global warming equation. There is only limited studies on the Milankovitch cycle and the Earth's magentic field and none relating to thier effects on global warming. Unfortunately, our climate is more complicated than merely looking at the make up of the atmosphere. What's happening on Earth cannot be compared to Venus because Venus is outside the livable zone in our solar system and Mars does not have the magnetic field or gravitational effect like that of Earth. Our climate is like an engine. Trying to determine what is causing an engine to overheat by looking at just the air intake is not going to help...Many factors determine our climate, not just one.

Back to what Palpatine001  said: He believes the warming is 95% natural and 5% human. You Schm0 said "Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects.". That would equate to 0.25% being the fault of humans and the rest being natural. So, a 5 degree change would equate to 0.25 degree change as human caused and 4.75 degree change as natural. I agree with palpatine001.

No changes can be quickly implemented to reduce temperatures so adaptation is what we have for now...Mother nature will eventually correct herself.

[Palpatine001 57]

hymewales

Thanks for your support mate, very much appreicated indeed . We must focus our attention to mitigation for the long term with Climate Change and adapt, again Earth will sort herself out over her geological time frame. It is the only way humanity will be able to survive.

To everyone else, as stated earlier pollution and global warming while inter related is two separate topics in this instance so I won't drag in the pollution debate, just touch on it in reference.

schm0

How can I put this nicely, you sealed your own coffin with that remark that is above hymewales and confirms what I had suspected. You are not critiquing anyone or anything, you are standing from one entrenched point and blasting anyone or anything that puts up an opinion or statements against global warming regardless if has facts! Those "opinion" pieces from this mornings Herald are those of opinion of those who wrote it and they are entitled under free speech to do so, Dr Bloodaxe even supported her claims in what she said being a Geologist from Auckland and Waikato Universities respectively. If you have graduated from university, Academics would be ASHAMED! That you failed in your primary role of analysing material critically as you are not, what I had presented earlier would material analysised by myself and international academics from the University of Auckland, a university that is very well connected globally. Now that material I presented here at this site is what we believe in, however unlike you sir, we peer review our stuff find holes and away we go with more research and the cycle goes on. What you do in not critique, but what Al Gore does and fire blanks, that you admitted that much when I critiqued the piece on NASA and that Sciences Academy. OF COURSE THAT CAN GET IT WRONG, mistakes are made as we are human, that is why we critically analyise to learn from our previous errors and produced more sound knowledge, SCIENCE ISNT PERFECT AND NOR ARE WE! Also how do they get money or funding for their projects, governments and private firms do usually attach strings to funding. And before you pull that apart go and do Public Policy and Physical Geography. Also I stand what I say about the UN, its a political body and like any political body will do what it needs to do to suit its own end including scaring the masses - hey the USA did it post 9/11 and NZ Labour Party did it pre 05 election to remain in power (but that is another subject (best left alone).

Have you been to university and done Geography, Geology or Physics as a major? Because your sad attempt at flamming the piece of shortwave radiation and albedo (I could be spelling that wrong ooops but in means reflectivity of a given surface) has exposed a rather massive shortcoming in your piece. Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation of the short wave length, long wave is the infra red radiation Earth releases from itself. Any scientist in physics will tell you that and yes Earth reflects and sends radiation back into space, remember satellite sensors are like our organic eyes.

Going to CFCs, CFCs were banned for Ozone Depleteing Properties, Ozone absorbs and back scatters shortwave radiation into space, thus acts as a regulator to how much shortwave radiation of which UV is part of it enters Earth and hence the Skin Cancer saga we are facing. CFCs are a coolant but that is not why they were banned.

And yes 85% of all climatic data stations are in urban areas and that is a fact period, it is what is causing the skewed affect as when all the stations around the world are sending their data for analysis that 85% is enough to throw off any emperical analysis.

As for Heat Islands, any geographier doing Climate would know about Urban Heat Islands and their effect on the localised and now most likely regional environments, as for those white dots, depends on Satellite specs, if the Sat like the one above is doing a broad shot, it won't pick up the Islands, but at close range say in orbit of 500km focusing on say parts of a nation, a Sat will pick up the dots where the cities are. As for water vapour, lets see, 6 billion humans respiring, power plants, transport fleet, argiculture, anything that uses electric cooling, while that makes up a small % yes, it could upset the balance, we need more research to find out what.

The Pacific Warms and Cools, heard of El Nino and La Nina which my home nation feels the brunt of?

The piece on the Pacific Islands, sea rise in the Pacific is at 1.8mm a year and with the Pacific being the largest ocean, thats quite significant, as for geologically sinking and rising PI and NZ states, yes it is local but when dealing with mitigating climatic change you look global and local to get the whole story and to create an effective mitigation plan.

As for sources, I am scouring through the University of Auckland and all my findings from my degree at home, I will get them up ASAP and you will find my accusations are backed up as being an academic and student (always learning)

Now this is going to get me in trouble with the staff  but I will take the consquences!

Why is it when I take the time to destroy someone's "evidence" for a global warming hoax or conspiracy I'm criticized for bothering to do so in the first place? This is a forum for discussion, so I discuss. If the length of my posts is a problem for you to take the time to read, then perhaps listening to what I have to say is not for you. Personally, I enjoy dropping intellectual bombs on the "purported facts" of global warming conspiracists and hoax promoters. I enjoy it. It's fun to me. I like to argue and debate issues that are important to me. Nuff said. quote>

   That is suggesting plain arrogance, now if you have graduated from university in natural and human sciences than SHAME ON YOU, your mind is closed and will not analyise new information as it comes to hand, your ego and entrenchment blinds you and puts a bad name on science and academia, if you have not graduated then I suggest you come to Auckland, do a BSc in Geography and a BA in Politics and you might get an small insight to where I come from. You don't discuss you bleat! You don't protect liberity, you hinder it with ultra conservatism!

So until them I will not debate with a bleater any further

---

To everyother member and staff, while I am sorry about that rant, I feel I must go into Bat to defend myself, other open minded people and the name of science in order so that in time we can find out what Earth is up to and how to mitigate for climatic change. Measures are been taken in NZ and the PI already such as land use change, protecting the coast and floodplains, our resources and other mitigation techniques and further research and analysis, thus we will be prepared for as best we can for Earth doing what ever she wants with climate, the game people is adpatation to the environment, not stand there and bleat and be a part of the problem and not the solution.

Now as for pollution that is a different issue all together, anyone want to open a thread on it?

[kibblewitbit 0]

i wasnt only talking to you shm0 i said "people" (i should have also emphasised on palpatine)

you can spend hours proving someone wrong, then they will just spend a few hours on a counter argument, nobody comes out on top its just a waste of time, the problem with the global warming debate is that nobodys facts have been proven right, your not gonna change anyones mind by restating the same arguments that we've all heard hundreds of times before

[kibblewitbit 0]

im sorry though i have to side with palpatine on this argument, i like to aproach every "fact" i come across with skepticism

[Palpatine001 57]

kibblewitbit: to research then? May your skepticism be a balance against rashness and allow greater research to better our understanding.

Also I with fellow academics will continue to research for you kibblewitbit in hoping that we can better our understanding of what is going on, having an open mind is hard while people entrench themselves, but it is commonsense that will pevail.

As I have stated my case more than once, I won't state it again, people can read what I have posted and make their own minds up but will take questions. I will have source links tomorrow to back my claims.

[daniel01 0]

The Pacific Warms and Cools, heard of El Nino and La Nina which my home nation feels the brunt of?quote>

 

I agree with Palpatine001 El Nino has caused significant damage to New Zealand and to Australia.

It has caused wide spread drought in Australia, and we have had the lowest rainfall yet. Some fo you dam systems are only at 30% capacity with other states having lower dam capacity

The point is that this El Nino has stayed longer than expected and has casued more heat waves with significant less rainfall.

It was only late last year early this year that we were told that El Nino had left and now we wait for La Nina to bring significant rainfall.

daniel01

[coolotter88 2]

IDS2, rockets do not burn petroleum-based fuel, they burn...rocket fuel which is something like h2o2,h2, or some other compound like ammonia permanganate...

Jet aircraft burn lots of fuel but they are very convenient.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Shingure But still. Does it show that Temps and CO2 levels rise?quote>

It does and its very interesting. Looking at different time scales is also interesting. (And you will find a few different timescales out there). Its also interesting to draw on them major events. For example if you can find one that goes back to the Cambrian, try putting on it the Cambrian explosion, the first land plants, the Ordivician extinction event, the break up of Pangea etc. (You may not find one with CO2 back that far, but you might find temperature estimates)

I don't think realistically that you would find too many scientists who would deny that temperature, atmospheric gas content and climate have varied throughout Earth's history though.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: hymewales Global warming and pollution are two seperate issues...and yes, pollution needs to be reduced.quote>

They are directly related to one another. Are you saying that pollution has no impact on our global climate?

According to the beloved graph,  the Earth has been warmer in periods than before now. CO2 has also been increasing since the Roman Empire. Are we to blame the Roman Empire for starting Global Warming? All this graph shows me is that CO2 increases and temperature increases are part of a natural cycle that has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years. Is there a clear correlation? There are clear periods when the correlation is not what it seems. Like right after 125 thousand years ago when CO2 was constant, but temperatures were still decreasing. Or even later after year 0, the CO2 spikes but temperatures jump up and down and not spiking as in earlier periods with CO2.  This means, there are other factors...quote>

No, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and the last 10 years are the hottest on record. The Roman Empire didn't build factories that spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, we did. If you note, there is sharp spikes in both C0₂ and temperature, then a steady decrease over many thousands of years. These periods where "things aren't what they seem" don't prove that C0₂ and temperature aren't directly correlated, which the rest of the graph does. The graph ends at year 0, by the way. There is no recorded data into the future.

Schm0

To get an accurate determination of human impact on global warming, you have to factor in other events like the Earth's orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the Earth's weakened magnetic field. <See page 13 of this thread for references>. No studies have been done to include every variable into the global warming equation. There is only limited studies on the Milankovitch cycle and the Earth's magentic field and none relating to thier effects on global warming. quote>

So how do you know these things are the causes of global warming if they have yet to be confirmed by larger and more extensive research? The consensus today was formulated by decades of research and is backed by thousands of reports, peer-edited research papers and climate models. You contradict yourself by announcing that there are other factors, even though not a single one of those factors have been caused to be related to global warming at all.

Unfortunately, our climate is more complicated than merely looking at the make up of the atmosphere. What's happening on Earth cannot be compared to Venus because Venus is outside the livable zone in our solar system and Mars does not have the magnetic field or gravitational effect like that of Earth.quote>

I wasn't saying Earth is like Venus, merely pointing out what an example of the Greenhouse Effect and specifically the effects of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere. All atmospheric systems are complex, not just our own.

Our climate is like an engine. Trying to determine what is causing an engine to overheat by looking at just the air intake is not going to help...Many factors determine our climate, not just one.quote>

I agree. There are other man-made gases that need to be eliminated to scale back the effects of global warming. And your analogy is a bit simplistic: my mechanic can fix my car in a day, but we can't repair the global environment as easily or quickly.

Back to what Palpatine001  said: He believes the warming is 95% natural and 5% human. You Schm0 said "Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects.". That would equate to 0.25% being the fault of humans and the rest being natural. So, a 5 degree change would equate to 0.25 degree change as human caused and 4.75 degree change as natural. I agree with palpatine001. quote>

If I disagreed with Palpatine001, then you can't take my argument and his argument, mold them into one, and then say there is a common result. The impact we are having on global climate is MUCH LARGER THAN .25% Your figures take into effect the natural phenomenon of water vapor and naturally-occuring carbon dioxide which exist in equilibrium and have done so for millenia. Add the human race, pump trillions of extra tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and tell me that it won't start to mess with the fragile equilibrium that has been established. Furthermore, I stand by my original statement. On a hot day, it is 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Add 5% to that, and you get nearly 100 degrees. Do that on a global scale, and you'll see devastating effects on crops, sea levels, weather patterns and global ice sheets and glaciers. What is happening to our world is not natural, it is man-made.

No changes can be quickly implemented to reduce temperatures so adaptation is what we have for now...Mother nature will eventually correct herself.quote>

How about a radical idea? Shut down all industry for a week and note the changes in the atmosphere. I guarantee you'll see some astounding results. Your assumptions all include a large leap of faith: that all of what is happening is natural and could not possibly be because of rampant pollutants expelled into the atmosphere. According to the graphs you have been referring to, Mother Nature will take approximately 50,000 years to "correct" herself. I personally don't plan on sitting back and waiting.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 hymewales

Thanks for your support mate, very much appreicated indeed . We must focus our attention to mitigation for the long term with Climate Change and adapt, again Earth will sort herself out over her geological time frame. It is the only way humanity will be able to survive.

To everyone else, as stated earlier pollution and global warming while inter related is two separate topics in this instance so I won't drag in the pollution debate, just touch on it in reference.

schm0

How can I put this nicely, you sealed your own coffin with that remark that is above hymewales and confirms what I had suspected. You are not critiquing anyone or anything, you are standing from one entrenched point and blasting anyone or anything that puts up an opinion or statements against global warming regardless if has facts!quote>

Editorials are not facts. They do not cite references. They are not peer-edited. They are nothing but opinions. I am sorry if you take offense to such refutations, but in the realm of argument and logic you can't simply say you believe something because someone else says something. I back up most of my claims with scientific studies and links to those claims because I want the reader to be able to understand that my information comes from reputable sources, not editorial opinion.

Those "opinion" pieces from this mornings Herald are those of opinion of those who wrote it and they are entitled under free speech to do so, Dr Bloodaxe even supported her claims in what she said being a Geologist from Auckland and Waikato Universities respectively.quote>

Dr. Bloodaxe knows, as do I, that her opinions are one thing and a research paper purporting the same are entirely different. Besides, two people's opinions do not overwhelm the consensus and research performed by hundreds of other scientists, all of whom would disagree, as did I.

If you have graduated from university, Academics would be ASHAMED! That you failed in your primary role of analysing material critically as you are not, what I had presented earlier would material analysised by myself and international academics from the University of Auckland, a university that is very well connected globally. Now that material I presented here at this site is what we believe in, however unlike you sir, we peer review our stuff find holes and away we go with more research and the cycle goes on.quote>

I am not writing a research paper. I find sources with the tools at my disposal and refute the evidence presented based on facts, not other people's opinion. I applaud the fact that you recognize and accept the peer-review process, and understand that editorials are opinion pieces and reflect merely that. There is a fine line between belief and knowledge.

What you do in not critique, but what Al Gore does and fire blanks, that you admitted that much when I critiqued the piece on NASA and that Sciences Academy. OF COURSE THAT CAN GET IT WRONG, mistakes are made as we are human, that is why we critically analyise to learn from our previous errors and produced more sound knowledge, SCIENCE ISNT PERFECT AND NOR ARE WE!quote>

These are the smartest minds in the world! Why, among all the other topics that NASA and the NAS explores and discusses, is global warming the ONE THING they are wrong about? You offer no critique of their analysis, whereas the second finding by Dr. Whateverhisnameis has been shown to be critically unsound. (I am referring to the two analyses of the famous hockey-stick graph.)

Also how do they get money or funding for their projects, governments and private firms do usually attach strings to funding. And before you pull that apart go and do Public Policy and Physical Geography. Also I stand what I say about the UN, its a political body and like any political body will do what it needs to do to suit its own end including scaring the masses - hey the USA did it post 9/11 and NZ Labour Party did it pre 05 election to remain in power (but that is another subject (best left alone).quote>

Oh here we go again. The conspiracy arises again... you really think that educational institutions are so desperate for money they'd purport a lie to gain funds for research!? You are also referring to parties or branches of governments, not the entire government itself. I didn't vote for GWB, and what he did to scare this country into submission post 9/11 is unacceptable. However, two or three instances OUTSIDE of the U.N. doesn't prove anything about what is going on INSIDE the U.N. Your argument proves that governmental bodies can be corrupt, but cites no evidence (other than your own conspiracy theory) that the U.N. is such a body.

Have you been to university and done Geography, Geology or Physics as a major? Because your sad attempt at flamming the piece of shortwave radiation and albedo (I could be spelling that wrong ooops but in means reflectivity of a given surface) has exposed a rather massive shortcoming in your piece. Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation of the short wave length, long wave is the infra red radiation Earth releases from itself. Any scientist in physics will tell you that and yes Earth reflects and sends radiation back into space, remember satellite sensors are like our organic eyes.quote>

As for these topics, I was making fun of the use of your language describing such processes (which I recognize) to make satellites "think" they are seeing something else. They are machines. They see what we meant them to, and they can't be coerced into "thinking" any differently. The earth has always had these processes which you describe, so they don't explain the recent trends in temperature. Increased solar activity goes on in longer periods than the current trend of global warming, thus causing a lack of correlation in your theory.

Going to CFCs, CFCs were banned for Ozone Depleteing Properties, Ozone absorbs and back scatters shortwave radiation into space, thus acts as a regulator to how much shortwave radiation of which UV is part of it enters Earth and hence the Skin Cancer saga we are facing. CFCs are a coolant but that is not why they were banned.quote>

CFC's are also a greenhouse gas as well as an ozone depleter. The ozone layer provides protection from this radiation, which you already stated.

And yes 85% of all climatic data stations are in urban areas and that is a fact period, it is what is causing the skewed affect as when all the stations around the world are sending their data for analysis that 85% is enough to throw off any emperical analysis.quote>

Please cite a source for this information. I have found your claim to be patently false. The following link is a database search provided by the NOAA. All the little red dots on this map are weather stations. They literally cover a vast majority of the land mass in the world.

NOAA weather station database

Furthermore, data is collected from weather balloons, airplanes, oceanic research vessels and satellites.

As for Heat Islands, any geographier doing Climate would know about Urban Heat Islands and their effect on the localised and now most likely regional environments, as for those white dots, depends on Satellite specs, if the Sat like the one above is doing a broad shot, it won't pick up the Islands, but at close range say in orbit of 500km focusing on say parts of a nation, a Sat will pick up the dots where the cities are.quote>

Please see the above link.

As for water vapour, lets see, 6 billion humans respiring, power plants, transport fleet, argiculture, anything that uses electric cooling, while that makes up a small % yes, it could upset the balance, we need more research to find out what.quote>

Again more claims, with no research to back it up. I'm confused... didn't you say I needed to analyze the data? Without it, it's kind of hard to refute, wouldn't you say?

The Pacific Warms and Cools, heard of El Nino and La Nina which my home nation feels the brunt of?quote>

No, I live in a bunker and haven't read a newspaper in 20 years. Yes, I have. They are naturally occurring weather patterns. They effect these patterns across the globe.

The piece on the Pacific Islands, sea rise in the Pacific is at 1.8mm a year and with the Pacific being the largest ocean, thats quite significant, as for geologically sinking and rising PI and NZ states, yes it is local but when dealing with mitigating climatic change you look global and local to get the whole story and to create an effective mitigation plan.quote>

Geographical elevation (or depression) due to tectonic activity and sea elevation due to melting ice caps are different and uncorrelated.

As for sources, I am scouring through the University of Auckland and all my findings from my degree at home, I will get them up ASAP and you will find my accusations are backed up as being an academic and student (always learning.)quote>

I eagerly await such citations.

Now this is going to get me in trouble with the staff  but I will take the consquences!

Why is it when I take the time to destroy someone's "evidence" for a global warming hoax or conspiracy I'm criticized for bothering to do so in the first place? This is a forum for discussion, so I discuss. If the length of my posts is a problem for you to take the time to read, then perhaps listening to what I have to say is not for you. Personally, I enjoy dropping intellectual bombs on the "purported facts" of global warming conspiracists and hoax promoters. I enjoy it. It's fun to me. I like to argue and debate issues that are important to me. Nuff said. quote>

  

That is suggesting plain arrogance, now if you have graduated from university in natural and human sciences than SHAME ON YOU, your mind is closed and will not analyise new information as it comes to hand, your ego and entrenchment blinds you and puts a bad name on science and academia, if you have not graduated then I suggest you come to Auckland, do a BSc in Geography and a BA in Politics and you might get an small insight to where I come from.quote>

I think you are coming from a biased and so far uncorroborated point of view. This is my opinion. Show me evidence and facts cited by numerous peer-edited research papers, and perhaps I'll be swayed. The fact is, all of the evidence points towards the present consensus. While there are certainly unknown factors, perhaps what you've mentioned above, research is needed into these areas to determine their correlation. I do not dismiss these ideas, but to claim that they are the cause instead of what has been established, without any research to back it up, you are stuck in the conundrum of arguing opinion versus fact.

You don't discuss you bleat! You don't protect liberity, you hinder it with ultra conservatism!

quote>

How dare you use the "c" word! I am anything BUT conservative, my friend. My theories support a left-leaning position that recognizes that rampant pollution by unregulated industry, human population growth and corrupt governments have been lax to do anything about this for selfish and irrational reasons. Furthermore, the quotes above were from an American movie called "The Three Amigos" and were put in there for a laugh. Please don't take them seriously.

In the end, I am just arguing for the sake of itself... I am not a scientist. I am someone with an opinion and the determination to research (and refute) claims contrary to the overwhelming evidence on my side. I've done my own research, read a bit on the subject, and found the data to be conclusive. Do I believe that we know everything there is to know? I would never claim such a thing. But to dismiss the thousands of brilliant minds across the globe in a conspiracy as ignorant to alternative theories, then you are simply wrong. I encourage study into anything that might be changing the Earth's climate. Just don't start claiming corruption and conspiracy when the rest of the world disagrees with you. I ask this of you: is it possible that you are wrong? I am willing to admit the same... are you?

So until them I will not debate with a bleater any furtherquote>

Ba-a-a! BA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!

To everyother member and staff, while I am sorry about that rant, I feel I must go into Bat to defend myself, other open minded people and the name of science in order so that in time we can find out what Earth is up to and how to mitigate for climatic change. Measures are been taken in NZ and the PI already such as land use change, protecting the coast and floodplains, our resources and other mitigation techniques and further research and analysis, thus we will be prepared for as best we can for Earth doing what ever she wants with climate, the game people is adpatation to the environment, not stand there and bleat and be a part of the problem and not the solution.quote>

Oh, boo-hoo! All I ask is that you debate the facts, not unresearched and inconclusive evidence. My mind is opened to logical discussion, not conspiracy theories. Save those for another thread.

Now as for pollution that is a different issue all together, anyone want to open a thread on it?quote>

I'm sticking with one major topic at a time, and since they are directly related, I think that you could discuss aspects of air pollution in great detail without getting off-topic.

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wasnt only talking to you shm0 i said "people" (i should have also emphasised on palpatine)

you can spend hours proving someone wrong, then they will just spend a few hours on a counter argument, nobody comes out on top its just a waste of time, the problem with the global warming debate is that nobodys facts have been proven right, your not gonna change anyones mind by restating the same arguments that we've all heard hundreds of times beforequote>

So this didn't reference me at all?

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wouldnt exactly call that short and sweet^^^

and people (cough cough Shm0) please stop taking apart every single post its just a waste of space and it also wastes the readers time as well as your ownquote>

I think this is a weak and pessimistic argument to make. Why discuss anything at all if not to alter someone's perception or opinion?