Forums | MacLife

reece_james wrote:

Well considering that the CSIRO has shown that the current weather conditions are cyclic in Australia.

ugh. brain. make. hurt.
I imagine you're referring to Barrie Hunt from the CSIRO and the Big Dry.

Barrie thinks the dought is something that comes from time to time, yet he doesn't think global warming is fictional.

However, he did not deny global warming risked raising Austarlia's temperatures, which CSIRO predicts will rise up to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) by 2030 and six degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit) by 2070.

http://www.physorg.com/news86499896.html

Six degrees C is a massive increase that's definitely going to have a significant impact upon agriculture, wildlife, energy consumption, etc. Around here a 6 degree C is the difference between a snow pack and reservoirs filled with water, or major drought.   

I'm sorry dude, academic research is pretty much in unison on this one. We produce green house gasses; green house gasses insulate the Earth; things get hot.

You're a university student, correct? Search your school's journal database for peer reviewed studies.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-01-09 12:05 am)

To sit here an say that "Every study focus[es] on the production of greenhouse gasses being the sole cause of the problem" merely indicates that you haven't taken the time to read the academic research.

It is absolutely silly to claim that climatologists fail to examine climate change while also accounting for water displacement, water desalinization, deforestation, etc.   Moreover, it's blatantly incorrect to claim climatology has yet to research climate change over extended periods. Geologic research is commonly used to examine environmental trends (CO2 levels, temperature, global catastrophes) stretching hundreds of thousands of years back... predating the Romans and Greeks carving "smurf it's hot today" on to stone walls.

And finally, to claim that studies are being "censored" is straight up ridiculous. Do you have any idea how academic research is actually published and distributed?  Heck, I do research for a living. If you can't get something published in a respectable journal, something is seriously wrong with your methods, data, or analysis.

Kevin Costner

Waterworld

Thats all i'm sayin'...

reece_james wrote:

Lets have a few examples then...

The world was flat. Oh, whoops. (We look back now and think they were stupid)

The Sun revolved around the Earth. Big whoops. (We look back now and think they were stupid)

More recently dolphins have big brains and thus really smart, oh wait they have an IQ that would insult most bricks. (We are about to look back and think they were stupid)

Global warming. (They will look back 20 years from now and think that we were stupid)

I'm not saying that the temperature isn't rising, I'm just saying that based upon the evidence presented to me, I am not convinced that it is caused by the current reasons believed to cause global warming.

Edit: Feel free to call me stupid in 5 years when the temperature is rising just as fast as it is now despite lower emissions.

Whoops, we didn't do anything about global warming.  We will look back and say they were stupid.

DukeofNuke wrote:

The threadapult is aiming at Minithink

I will be seveely pissed if that happens. Moving it would serve to validate the bizarre notion (admittedly mostly held by right wingers) that global warming is a politcal issue rathe than a scientific one.

jondaris wrote:

DukeofNuke wrote:

The threadapult is aiming at Minithink

Moving it would serve to validate the bizarre notion (admittedly mostly held by right wingers) that global warming is a politcal issue rathe than a scientific one.

Doesn't matter which side you land on, it's in the media so much that it is a political issue and science (and common sense for the most part) doesn't come into it.

reece_james wrote:

jondaris wrote:

DukeofNuke wrote:

The threadapult is aiming at Minithink

Moving it would serve to validate the bizarre notion (admittedly mostly held by right wingers) that global warming is a politcal issue rathe than a scientific one.

Doesn't matter which side you land on, it's in the media so much that it is a political issue and science (and common sense for the most part) doesn't come into it.

The fact that its on the media doesn't make it any less of a science issue. Its all about the science.

reece_james wrote:

Restore the trees to the equator and 90% of the problem will correct itself. Your precious ice records will confirm this. When there is more CO2 in the air, the temperature increases. This aligns with significant volcanic activity and deforestation due to fire. Oh wait a tick. Maybe it isn't just the CO2 that is causing it, maybe it's the lack of trees. Oh duh! However it is not politically acceptable to prevent the deforestation in the tropical areas. No it's better to get rid of the evidence, the CO2.

Once again, I'll stand by this. Come back in 5 years when it is realised that just reducing emissions won't fix the problem.

There hasn't been nearly enough volcanism in the past 200 years to account for all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. And trees mostly just counterbalance CO2 created by respiration, which is relatively little, compared to what is coming from combustion.

I'll just come back when you actually know something about the subject and stop posting blatant bullsmurf.

Chickenhawk wrote:

To clarify: trees can't do smurf to handle the massive amounts of CO2 thrown into the atmosphere from burning hydrocarbons as fuel.

Hydrocarbons in oil and fuel which are created from forests! Trees aren't creating CO2 they flipping storing the carbon. We release it when we burn their fossilised remains. The trees that are burned to clear forests also are emitting CO2 which they are storing. The more trees you have the lower the CO2 problem. Also shown is that the more tropical forest you have, the lower the average temperature of those areas as opposed to temperate (replacement) forests and cleared land.

So now who doesn't have their facts straight?

Trees emit BOTH O2 and CO2. The missing C in that is stored in the tree. When we burn a tree or it's remains we bond it to oxygen to create CO2. Ultimately the whole problem doesn't come from the burning of fossil fuels it is the burning of trees which have dutifully cleaned the air of CO2!

Chickenhawk wrote:

reece_james wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

To clarify: trees can't do smurf to handle the massive amounts of CO2 thrown into the atmosphere from burning hydrocarbons as fuel.

Hydrocarbons in oil and fuel which are created from forests!

No. Coal is not created from forests, and oil is not created from forests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Man, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! Coal doesn't come from forests. Seriously, you crack me up.

And the swamps that most of our coal comes from were doing photosynthesis around 300 million years ago. That means that they have no relevance to our current atmosphere, so burning that coal is *not* carbon neutral.

reece_james wrote:

Lets have a few examples then...

The world was flat. Oh, whoops. (We look back now and think they were stupid)

The Sun revolved around the Earth. Big whoops. (We look back now and think they were stupid)

More recently dolphins have big brains and thus really smart, oh wait they have an IQ that would insult most bricks. (We are about to look back and think they were stupid)

Global warming. (They will look back 20 years from now and think that we were stupid)

I'm not saying that the temperature isn't rising, I'm just saying that based upon the evidence presented to me, I am not convinced that it is caused by the current reasons believed to cause global warming.

Edit: Feel free to call me stupid in 5 years when the temperature is rising just as fast as it is now despite lower emissions.

It's really quite moronic to compare the scientific method and the contemporary pear review process to antiquated unsubstantiated hypotheses and hearsay.

It's blatantly apparent that you've already adopted a conclusion you wish to see validated; regardless of whether or not it has been obtained through legitimate methods.  Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that. Conclusions are arrived at via the scientific method, not truthiness.

Science isn't a sports game. Picking sides is contrary to objectivity and if you debate hard enough that doesn't mean we're all going to see something completely different when we logon to Ebbso next week.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-01-10 5:46 am)

Defunker wrote:

Well this should be fun.

reece_james wrote:

Every study focus on the production of greenhouse gasses being the sole cause of the problem.

Here are other things that do not taken into account.
• Displacement of water causing water levels to rise.

Sea levels rise directly as a result of global warming, don't they?

Water will also rise if you displace it with things such as boats, also when you reclaim land dump into the ocean and of course new islands being formed. These will cause water levels to rise. Not just thermal expansion.

reece_james wrote:

• Deforestation of select areas of the planet and their impact on both global temperature and recording of global temperature.

Defunker wrote:

You want to know how deforestation is done in many 3rd world countries?  I'll give you a hint.  It involves fire, which lets off CO2, which adds to the greenhouse effect.  Oh, and it all actuality, trees also breathe out CO2 when they're not photosynthesising, like at night, so I fail to see what effect they have on rising CO2 levels.

The fact isn't the release of the CO2, it's that forests in tropical areas have been proven to cool the planet where as temperate forests tend to warm it up. Cleared land also tends to warm it up. Desert doesn't do much.

reece_james wrote:

• Natural cycling of temperature.

Defunker wrote:

It's already been proven and agreed upon that we're far outside of the normal, natural cycles dating back 650,000 years.  Yet skeptics like yourself say that's not a problem.  Rational people agree that it is a problem, because this change will work counter to the survival of civilization.

The normal cycle average. There have been occasions dating back as little as 2000 years that have temperatures rivaling those of today. I'm not disputing that something is warming it up, BUT IT ISN'T JUST CO2!!!

reece_james wrote:

• Increased solar activity.
• Polar shift.
• No proven global warming during the industrial revolution.

Defunker wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the first two, but the ice cores in the antartic serve as records proving that there was global warming during the industrial revolution.

Every now and again the Earth enters a period where solar radiation is higher. This is a natural cycle beyond our control. Polar shift is also something that has been recored where the polar ice caps wander. They well melt in places and reform elsewhere. The ice cores during the industrial revolution are a bit iffy. The reason is that it may have started melting just prior to it kicking off. Which is weird, you would expect it to start melting, after it already started...

reece_james wrote:

• Failure to record land usage and total emissions of that land. (Everything is guessed or extrapolated)
• Most data is extrapolated from small tests over too small period of time.

Defunker wrote:

Ice cores dating back 650,000 years don't qualify for 'too small period of time', me thinks.  Especially considering we've been through several ice ages during that period, which grants us the understanding of how much it CO2 it takes to cause major changes.

The usage of land has an effect on global temperatures. Unfortunately an accurate measurement can't be taken on CO2 emissions in the field. Only in a lab. This causes a problem when extrapolating.

reece_james wrote:

• Studies being censored to align to political agenda or policies.

Defunker wrote:

If anything, political agendas skew studies to try to deny global warming, as the recognision that this is a problem will hurt economies in the short-term.

Well a few studies whose results suggest that CO2 isn't to blame, have been quickly canned. The reason is that with CO2 it is easier to be perceived to be doing something about it. Some of the other causes lie outside of a politician's control or would cost a fortune to manage. CO2 is a relatively cheap and easy scapegoat.

Now in saying all this, I can guarantee that I produce the lower CO2 emissions out of most of you guys. I ride a bike, recycle, use energy efficient lighting and use solar how water. I don't believe that the CO2 theory of global warming is to blame, but I do recognise that it is happening one way or another.