But but but, they said the science was settled.

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

What is wrong with that?

I say nothing

[monte.b]

This global warming ,ie climate change cause it stopped warming science is just a theory just like god ,and we came from the apes ,they cant prove it 100% ,but different people believe different things .It seems to me however that if in fact the world is creating this climate change thing ,the countries that are the great polluters need to clean their act up first ,lets face it compared to china and india we pollute stuff all so why do our industries have to suffer with that stupid carbon tax ,not that we have many industries left really and its getting less every day

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by monte.b

T.It seems to me however that if in fact the world is creating this climate change thing ,the countries that are the great polluters need to clean their act up first ,lets face it compared to china and india we pollute stuff all so

But when compared to an Indian or a Chinese person we as Australians' individually' on average create 10 times as much pollution. And as humans can only act as individuals we are the ones who should clean up their act.
I think we will see china and India acting on their impact long before we do.
JP

[ute83]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

But when compared to an Indian or a Chinese person we as Australians' individually' on average create 10 times as much pollution. And as humans can only act as individuals we are the ones who should clean up their act.
I think we will see china and India acting on their impact long before we do.
JP

Nice one. Half the Chinese and Indians wouldn't even have electricity, or very little. Lets see once they have all moved up in the world. I bet the average will go up accordingly and with all the dirty manufacturing that they do their average will be much greater than ours.

[EgoFG]

Hmmm the God thing vss the Global warming thing.

Neither has incontrovertible proof.

One happily relies on faith, the other looks at the world around us and says it must have had a designer.

[cheap]

Chinese and Indians V's Australia's CO2 output.

A classic example where generalisations, numerical manipulation and bias interpretation is so unworthy of being reported yet it used to suggest Australians are the worst environmental vandals on the planet. Clearly we are not, if anyone wants to see the environment wrecked they should actually go to India. IMO it is disgraceful to belittle Australia with this nonsense.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by monte.b

This global warming ,ie climate change cause it stopped warming science is just a theory just like god ,and we came from the apes ,they cant prove it 100% ,but different people believe different things .It seems to me however that if in fact the world is creating this climate change thing ,the countries that are the great polluters need to clean their act up first ,lets face it compared to china and india we pollute stuff all so why do our industries have to suffer with that stupid carbon tax ,not that we have many industries left really and its getting less every day

Gravity is also a theory.
Do you understand the difference between theory and hypothesis in the scientific community?

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Gravity is also a theory.

I aint no scientist, but:

A theory is put together to describe the larger effect of a group of related laws.
We have a Law of Gravity, which is part of a Theory of general relativity.
The law of gravity is specific to the demonstrated measurable cause/effect, and may not hold true beyond that. (a bit like saying water boils at 100 degrees, at sea level, at the equator, if there are not atmospheric abnormalities)

To say something is a theory in scientific terms is to simply state that it has not been disproved, and represents the best scientific knowledge at the moment. It is not an insult.

To say though that "Man is creating Global warming", is probably short of a scientific theory. In fact, even assuming that all we hear on the plus side is true, it would still not be a scientific theory, rather just the effect of other theories and laws.

One of the problems with reported science is understanding causes and effects.
9/10 people that drink diet soft drinks are overweight, therefor diet soft drinks make you fat !
9/10 people who are dieting are overweight .. dieting make you fat.

Science (meaning knowledge) has described some things happening in the world around us. I am not the one to draw the conclusions for you .... and I still drink Pepsi Max !

[BHDOGS]

your right your no scientist thats for sure.

[GK]

It still beats the heck out of me that people can (after a short look at the complexity of our world and the human body) mock and ridicule the idea/belief (or if you prefer - theory) of intelligent design.

No car ever made, and we all love cars, has a 10th of the genius and complexity of the human body, and yet, none of us would claim that a car's design was a series of accidents.

As for AGW, my view is that a lot of people must have heaps more faith than I do. Their belief that our carbon dioxide has more of an effect on the earth's temperature than solar or volcanic activity takes far more faith than I have.

GK

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by GK

It still beats the heck out of me that people can (after a short look at the complexity of our world and the human body) mock and ridicule the idea/belief (or if you prefer - theory) of intelligent design.

No car ever made, and we all love cars, has a 10th of the genius and complexity of the human body, and yet, none of us would claim that a car's design was a series of accidents.

Because believing that we came from star dust is easier.
And mostly because the idea to most people that there is a creator is absurd.
Yet as you already stated we see evidence of creation all around us everyday.
We cannot even begin to understand the sheer complexity of the human brain, the mind is by far the most marvelous, incredible & spectacular device that will ever exist.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by GK

It still beats the heck out of me that people can (after a short look at the complexity of our world and the human body) mock and ridicule the idea/belief (or if you prefer - theory) of intelligent design.

No car ever made, and we all love cars, has a 10th of the genius and complexity of the human body, and yet, none of us would claim that a car's design was a series of accidents.

As for AGW, my view is that a lot of people must have heaps more faith than I do. Their belief that our carbon dioxide has more of an effect on the earth's temperature than solar or volcanic activity takes far more faith than I have.

GK

Let's stick with physical science, as enlightening or limiting as it may be.

The "belief" in the effect of greenhouse gases is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of measuring observations.

Can the sun or volcanoes account for the changes being observed? These factors have been been measured and reported.

Here's some links to the Skeptical Science site that explains the science behind this, in understandable english. You can select more advanced levels if you prefer. There's also links to the published research so you can get it from the horse's mouth and avoid wading through any media spin.

Is it the sun? Independent studies measuring solar activity have found that the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over recent decades - while at the same time global temperatures have been rising. Scientists have concluded that changes in the sun's output cannot be the cause.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...ming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acri...ing-hotter.htm



How about volcanoes? Humans release about 100 times more CO2. Volcanoes usually release a minimum-maximum range of 65-319 million tonnes per year. Burning fossil fuels and land use change releases around 30 billion tonnes per year. If that's hard to believe then you can read their research methodology and see if you can find fault.

They report that very large, sporadic eruptions can influence climate through the release of aerosols, however very little of the warming over the last 40 years can be explained by this process.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm

[MyForce6]

Gday, came across these late last year. Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54

NASA Photo of Polar Ice Caps

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=O8ZyBljJ

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by MyForce6

NASA Photo of Polar Ice Caps

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=O8ZyBljJ

Check these links out for an explanation as to what that polar ice cap photo meant and the long term trends being observed.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...est-on-record/

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[MyForce6]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Check these links out for an explanation as to what that polar ice cap photo meant and the long term trends being observed.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...est-on-record/

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Interesting read. but still nothing to worry about.. how long have we been recording weather for?

The longest continuous temperature record is the Hadley Centre's Central England Temperature series. It starts around 1850 when methodical thermometer-based records began.

Weather balloon temperature measurements become useable by about 1958.

Satellite measurements had started by 1978-1980.

The longest useful record of carbon dioxide concentrations is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and was started by Charles Keeling in about 1958.

Observations of sunspots and maritime records go back further.

The longest high-precision paleoclimate record are the EPICA ice cores. They give us an idea of carbon dioxide levels and temperature levels going back about 600,000 years.

Given the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old our recordings are but a pin ***** on a timeline.

[EgoFG]

Aside from the fun I had above - I am on both sides of the human caused global warming debate.
There are so many facts, and it is hard to weigh them.
Where science has $ involved it becomes less reliable (consider the history of the reputation of the egg in causing human cholesterol).

So I will always play both sides.

An interesting factoid is that of annual atmospheric CO2 38 billion tonnes are considered man made, 670 billion tonnes is natural.
http://www.whatsyourimpact.org/co2-sources.php

The totals are hidden and have to be extrapolated from the text.

I made some assumptions and some % for interest sake.
I assumed that all figures quoted were for the same year - in fact it seems to span as much as 10 years, so I think it is better to keep the approach in the website and use %.

Total Man made CO2 (including change in agriculture) is only about 5% of TOTAL annual CO2 (actually 5.3, but given my assumption above, I reckon we can drop the decimals of a %)

Total from road transport is 0.76% (ok I had to put the decimals in !)
USA Fossil Fuel usage (Coal/Oil/Gas) = 3% (the biggest consumer in this page)
USA road transport = 0.5%

You know when I look at this, I reckon that if there is man caused global warming, it will not be effected by taxing carbon - man made CO2 is possibly only a contributing factor. Even if we got rid of all coal use and replaced it with CO2 neutral energy sources - it would only reduce the annual CO2 by 2%.

I am not saying we are not destroying our planet ... but why do we in Australia even bother trying to change our carbon footprint with a carbon price ?
Australia produces only about 1-1.5% of man made CO2, which is at worst 0.08% of the Annual total CO2 production (man made plus natural).

I recon a policy to revert to 4x2 wood in houses would have a greater impact on Australian net CO2 output then any carbon price.

[max_torq]

pretty much before 600,000 it's ice.

[max_torq]

What if people thinking seriously about these issues, then look at Australia, and see we are belching out at our hearts content and exporting cheap clearance sale coal to everyone who will buy it, they will say; why should we bother.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by max_torq

What if people thinking seriously about these issues, then look at Australia, and see we are belching out at our hearts content and exporting cheap clearance sale coal to everyone who will buy it, they will say; why should we bother.

To keep things light, and yet controversial ... ;-)

I was not talking about the sale of CO2 creating products, but you have a point - we should also restrict the export of all animal products (live cattle anyone ?), and any other products that lead to CO2 creation (eg food) ... oh, I think we already did.

In fact the ocean is by far the largest CO2 manufacturer ... we need to close that down !

[cheap]

I must be missing something?

The video shows the Arctic ice mass lessening during the northern hemisphere's summer months.

Would there be any video's showing whats happening during the winter months?

[cheap]

North Pole - May 1987 - the ice looks kinda "thin"



As indestructible as a Hi-Lux is, I don't think even it would have made it to the North Pole in 1987.

Note: no Polar Bears were harmed whilst taking this photo

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

In fact the ocean is by far the largest CO2 manufacturer ... we need to close that down !

don’t forget the oceans also house the largest sink for carbon as well
Acknowledging that human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural carbon sinks and has been for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, carbon dioxide levels were quite steady because of this natural balance. (scientifically verified)

42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%). A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%). In a balanced system this carbon dioxide output would have an equal sequester or sink to take it back to help maintain balance.

On occasion the balance has been out of kilter, in worst scenarios near all mega fauna died in relatively short time geologically speaking! At the moment with the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutions we are tipping into the atmosphere the rate at which we are deforesting the land, poisoning the oceans and generally upsetting the balance I believe we are tipping the balance the wrong way. (scientifically verified)

What does this mean, change! possibly significant change which may not lead to our extinction in the next 50-100 years, our lifetime, but may lead to disruption that puts undue pressure on populations. Look at the mass migration due to wars, millions fleeing a city. think what the masses fleeing environmental degradation which could have a significantly larger and broader impact to certain areas. Imagine what they may think of a 'clean' country like Australia as a destination.

We already have huge numbers of 'foreigners' migrating through choice for a better life. Imagine what that will turn too if they have no alternative. The human story is one of migration through need, in search of a better life to avoid persecution or find kinder environments

JP

[xtremerus]

This "Balance" is BS. No such thing.

The Earth is a dynamic, constantly changing world. It has its own time frame, not human time frame.

Species of all life are constantly evolving to survive in this changing world. If it was in a '"balance", there would be no need for life to develop, as it would be in its little Utopian world and have no need to change.

The human race is probably unique, in that it is so smart that it thinks it can control the world. That will be our undoing.
We just need to adapt as the world changes, or we go extinct, as other life has done.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

This "Balance" is BS. No such thing.

Oh please! Really, I mean really?

[xtremerus]

I mean really.
So what is this hypothetical balance that this earth has.
There is no evidence of any balance in the history of this earth. Fact.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

I mean really.
So what is this hypothetical balance that this earth has.
There is no evidence of any balance in the history of this earth. Fact.

But but but , if we control CO2 then we control the globe's thermometer (it is beyond the realm of reality)

[irish2]

If Climate scientists can tell me what the weather will do in 50 years time, how come they can't tell me what it will do next week?

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by irish2

If Climate scientists can tell me what the weather will do in 50 years time, how come they can't tell me what it will do next week?

If Climate skeptics can tell me what the weather won't do in 50 years time, how come they can't tell me what it will do next week?

[Sox]

Originally Posted by Grunter

If Climate skeptics can tell me what the weather won't do in 50 years time, how come they can't tell me what it will do next week?

You missed his point.

AGW skeptics aren't claiming to know what the weather will do in 50 years time.
AGW proponents are.

[GasoLane]

Seeing as Humans are Carbon based Lifeforms should we be paying a carbon tax as well............. Oh, hang on....