Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Global Warming: Glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets are collapsing, and it's unstoppable; How the planet's ice cover is being altered by climate change
Topic Started: 27 May 2014, 01:51 PM (22,681 Views)
Dave
Unregistered

Posted Image
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Massive
Default APF Avatar


Shadow
26 Jun 2014, 11:02 PM

What do you think caused all the warming in the past (before man), and why do you think those think those things no longer cause warming?

those long term graphs still dont explain the rapid changes seen only in the last 100 years since industrilisation and jury is still out. nothing has been disproven at all... as i said, im no expert - but i think its bullshit that so many are throwing out climate change theory as irrelevant, when nothing has been conclusively disproven, and a number of statistical trends ( and science bodies ) still indicate/ believe that we are playing a part.

OK, my turn for questions...

What do we have to lose by being pro-active on emissions and clean energy / industy going forward and greenhouse gas theory is proven to be incorrect ?

What do we have to lose if we continue on out merry way, putting clean energy / industry on the backburner then our grandkids realise that all that crap we have been putting in the air HAS been making a difference and its hit the fast forward button on climate change cycles ?






Shadow
26 Jun 2014, 11:17 PM
How much extra tax are you willing to pay in order to try and prevent the climate from changing?

Let's say you give up $5000 a year for the next fifty years, and then in fifty years time the data says the climate is still changing.

Was your money well spent?

You spent a quarter of a million dollars, and the climate is still changing.

Perhaps that money would have been better spent on medical research, or housing the homeless, or delivering food to the starving around the world.

Everything has a cost. Every dollar spent trying to stop the climate from changing could be spent doing something that would actually help people.
and what happens if that money was spent and we realise it was required, and had we not spent it we would have been fucked ?


i already try to do what i can to get clean energy... as i see first hand the effects of pollutants when i go to regional china ... whether we are responsible global warming or not, we need to clean up our act.
Edited by Massive, 26 Jun 2014, 11:26 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


Massive
26 Jun 2014, 11:02 PM
Posted Image

Remarkable match to the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO), and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (both 30-40yr cycles). Notice how the warming coincides with the positive/warming phase of the PDO, and cooling/flat temperatures with the negative/cooling phase of the PDO. Also the solar activity was MUCH stronger in the solar cycles of the 1900's. All planets in the solar system warmed. MARS has global warming of 0.65deg C from 1970's-1990's. IT"S the SUN!!, not CO2. Cooling will come in the 2020's and 2030's due to weakening solar activity.

Posted Image
Edited by Investor888, 26 Jun 2014, 11:28 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Shadow
26 Jun 2014, 11:02 PM
There are no silly questions, only silly answers.

Is there any future outcome that alarmists couldn't possibly say is caused by man made global warming?

If you don't want to answer that's fine, I understand why
Oh it's a silly question alright. I could do the same and turn it around but I'm not that unethical.

Now what do you know about heat data on ice with a constant heat source applied while we graph the temperature changes during and after the transition phase to water?

Is the graph a curve, is it a straight line, or is it stepped?

Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
26 Jun 2014, 11:01 PM
No, I don't think water, apple seeds or asbestos are pollutants.

Water can become polluted, but is not itself a pollutant.
If Asbestos is a pollutant when it is removed from it's natural environment, why is water not also a pollutant when it fills your lungs?
Quote:
 
Apple seeds contain very small amounts of cyanide, and are not harmful because they pass through the body undigested.
So cyanide is a pollutant, so long as it is in large enough quantities to pose a danger to human health? Couldn't you say that about water? Or CO2, breathe 100% CO2 for a while, lets see how much it isn't a pollutant.
Quote:
 
Asbestos is not a pollutant unless it removed from its natural environment and put somewhere it doesn't belong.

CO2 belongs in the atmosphere and is created naturally, therefore it is not a pollutant.
So, the tonnes of CO2 that are released from fossil fuels when humans, unnaturally, burn them, are going to the place where they belong?
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Massive
26 Jun 2014, 11:24 PM
those long term graphs still dont explain the rapid changes seen only in the last 100 years
Rapid compared to what?

How rapidly did the climate change between 20,000BC and 19,900BC?

Or between 140,500BC and 140,400BC?

Nobody knows. We have no granular historical data with which to determine whether or not recent changes were rapid.

What we do know for a fact is the climate changed in the past. It was at times much warmer and at times much colder than it is today, and those changes were definitely not caused by human CO2 emissions.

Quote:
 
What do we have to lose by being pro-active on emissions and clean energy / industy going forward and greenhouse gas theory is proven to be incorrect ?

What do we have to lose if we continue on out merry way, putting clean energy / industry on the backburner then our grandkids realise that all that crap we have been putting in the air HAS been making a difference and its hit the fast forward button on climate change cycles ?

and what happens if that money was spent and we realise it was required, and had we not spent it we would have been fucked?
I'm all for clean energy and reducing pollution, but I'm against wasting money in a futile effort to prevent the climate from changing. The climate changed before humans existed and it will keep on changing long after humans stop living on this planet. We can't prevent the climate from changing.


peter fraser
26 Jun 2014, 11:29 PM
Oh it's a silly question alright. I could do the same and turn it around but I'm not that unethical.

Now what do you know about heat data on ice with a constant heat source applied while we graph the temperature changes during and after the transition phase to water?

Is the graph a curve, is it a straight line, or is it stepped?
Why should I answer your question when you refuse to answer mine?

I'm happy to answer yours, but you first.


Kulganis
26 Jun 2014, 11:31 PM
If Asbestos is a pollutant when it is removed from it's natural environment, why is water not also a pollutant when it fills your lungs?
It's not natural for our lungs to be filled with water.

Quote:
 
So cyanide is a pollutant, so long as it is in large enough quantities to pose a danger to human health? Couldn't you say that about water? Or CO2, breathe 100% CO2 for a while, lets see how much it isn't a pollutant.
It's not a pollutant at its current levels in the atmosphere.

Quote:
 
So, the tonnes of CO2 that are released from fossil fuels when humans, unnaturally, burn them, are going to the place where they belong?
The CO2 emitted by humans is indistinguishable from the CO2 emitted naturally, and it's nowhere near toxic levels, so it's not a pollutant. If I take a glass of water and pour it into the water in Warragamba Dam, have I polluted the water in the dam with water? No. In the same way adding a tiny amount of CO2 to the CO2 in the atmosphere has not polluted the atmosphere.
Edited by Shadow, 26 Jun 2014, 11:40 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


Massive
26 Jun 2014, 11:24 PM
those long term graphs still dont explain the rapid changes seen only in the last 100 years since industrilisation and jury is still out.
Rapid? It's nothing out of the ordinary through natural change, and is MUCH slower than some natural climate change. If you want to talk rapid, than read up on the Younger Dryas (end of the ice age) 12500-11000 yrs ago.

8-10deg C changes within timeframes of a decade - 10yrs!!!

From the IPCC themselves, should you want to fault the source/link as non-scientific :re:
IPCC - How Fast did Climate Change during the Glacial Period?
Quote:
 
The central Greenland ice core record (GRIP and GISP2) has a near annual resolution across the entire glacial to Holocene transition, and reveals episodes of very rapid change. The return to the cold conditions of the Younger Dryas from the incipient inter-glacial warming 13,000 years ago took place within a few decades or less(Alley et al., 1993). The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades

Quote:
 
On the other hand, very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.

Posted Image
Edited by Investor888, 26 Jun 2014, 11:59 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
26 Jun 2014, 11:32 PM
It's not natural for our lungs to be filled with water.
It's not natural that the fossil fuels we dig/pump up, and burn, release tonnes of CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

Quote:
 
It's not a pollutant at its current levels in the atmosphere.
No, it isn't harmful to human health at current levels. But the CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere, is not naturally there, therefore it is a pollutant.

Quote:
 
The CO2 emitted by humans is indistinguishable from the CO2 emitted naturally, and it's nowhere near toxic levels, so it's not a pollutant. If I take a glass of water and pour it into the water in Warragamba Dam, have I polluted the water in the dam with water? No. In the same way adding a tiny amount of CO2 to the CO2 in the atmosphere has not polluted the atmosphere.
Wrong, we can distinguish between natural and manmade sources...

Quote:
 
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

17:00 16 May 2007 by Catherine Brahic

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks

Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Volcanic misunderstanding

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?).

Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

While volcanic emissions are negligible in the short term, over tens of millions of years they do release massive quantities of CO2. But they are balanced by the loss of carbon in ocean sediments subducted under continents through tectonic plate movements. Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.U6wVmxCSz6U


"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Massive
Default APF Avatar


Investor888
26 Jun 2014, 11:43 PM
Rapid? It's nothing out of the ordinary through natural change, and is MUCH slower than some natural climate change. If you want to talk rapid, than read up on the Younger Dryas (end of the ice age) 12500-11000 yrs ago.





Posted Image
it is when put in context with what many scientists believe we should be experiencing naturally

Quote:
 
Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century.


Posted Image

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


Massive
27 Jun 2014, 12:00 AM
Posted Image

Climate models, LOL :lol :lol Why does you graph only go to 2000 (and it's programmed with rubbish for non-human impacts). Because after 2000 ALL the climate models are now ALL completely inaccurate, and can't match real and observed measurements.
Most models are already out between 0.2-0.5deg C in expected warming. That is a HUGE discrepancy so short into the prediction period.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Edited by Investor888, 27 Jun 2014, 12:15 AM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy