 |
Aardvark
Aardvark Forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6061
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: The headless chicken of climate change... (10 Mar 2010) |
 |
|
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0310.shtml
Are we really thinking hard enough about the best way to deal with climate change, or are we stumbling from stuff-up to stuff-up with band-aid fixes for a much larger problem?
If recent reports are to be believed, our attempts to fix other environmental issues have exacerbated the effects of climate change quite significantly.
Reducing air pollution has nearly doubled the projected rate of global warming.
Reducing the ozone hole as accelerated the thaw of Antarctic ice.
So what will the unintended side-effect of slashing carbon emissions be?
Perhaps a collapse of the food chain due to reduced rates of plant and plankton growth?
If we don't look before we leap, we risk making things much worse than they already are -- that's been proven twice now.
Are politicians just too keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it empowers them to introduce new taxes, laws and bureaucracy?
Are scientists keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it assures them of a job and respect as "saviours of the planet"?
Who's actually standing back and looking at the big-picture from a longer-term perspective, instead of engaging in these knee-jerk responses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mad
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 765
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The earth's ecosystem is a very delicate thing and the more we stuff around with it, the greater the risk of catastrophe. |
I would tend to disagree, the earth's ecosystem is very robust. It has survived numerous mass extinction events, global ice ages, big rocks falling from space, massive volcanic events etc. What is more delicate are the condition to ensure human survival.
What really gets me about this whole "delicate ecosystem" mantra is that people attempt to pass off what they are doing as virtuous and altruistic and saving the "planet".
The planet will get along just fine, some things will die off (humans?) and life on earth will trundle along ( It has been for the past billion years or so).
Combating pollution and climate change are purely selfish acts as they are to preserve our existence as a species on this planet, and they do have merit, but trying to claim that we should be doing this for the "good of the planet" is just plain wrong. We should be saying that it is needed for "the good of humanity". but I guess that sounds a bit to selfish for all the treehuggers out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulw
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1136
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brendan
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mad wrote: |
The planet will get along just fine, some things will die off (humans?) and life on earth will trundle along ( It has been for the past billion years or so).
Combating pollution and climate change are purely selfish acts as they are to preserve our existence as a species on this planet, and they do have merit, but trying to claim that we should be doing this for the "good of the planet" is just plain wrong. We should be saying that it is needed for "the good of humanity". but I guess that sounds a bit to selfish for all the treehuggers out there. |
So probably the best thing for the sake of the planet is to keep driving big gas guzzling V8s, build some more coal fired power plants, and keep flying, all for "the good of the planet". We just need to warm the northern tundra enough that the methane hydrate deposits are released, and then the fun will start. The sooner we wipe out humans the better (just as long as it happens after I'm dead). We all have to do our part for "the good of the planet".
And in the mean time, I could do with Auckland being a bit warmer. I was in Brazil last month, and that was really nice. It cooled down to 30 one evening, and we had goose bumps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barryl
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 254
Location: Canterbury
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: The headless chicken of climate change... (10 Mar 2010) |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0310.shtml
Are we really thinking hard
Are politicians just too keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it empowers them to introduce new taxes, laws and bureaucracy?
Are scientists keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it assures them of a job and respect as "saviours of the planet"?
|
I've tried thinking hard about it, but there's too many arguments and counterarguments, without a life-time's study, I don't feel capable of sorting out the *beep* from the shinola. However, I smell a very very large rat when I see that the IPCC said "we had to adopt the worst-case scenarios in some areas, to encourage action" and the Global Warming Darling brat, one Al Gore, uses about 25 x my power per year. Hypocrisy rules.....
No, I'm inclined to smell Nobel prizes, budgets, staff increases, egos to boost, and heroes to make.
Are politicians just too keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon. Does the bear *beep* in the woods? Sometimes these these clowns really ought to understand the better credo: "Don't just do something, stand there!"
Are scientists keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it assures them of a job and respect as "saviours of the planet"?
Again, remember the bear and the woods ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virtualkiwi
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Blenheim
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Answer is simple. Switch everyone to diesel - without catalytic converters or exhaust filters.
Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol engines, so lower emissions, but they do tend to emit particulate matter as well, and NOx which might kill a few people off and reduce the population into the bargain.
I'm not sure, but I think bio-diesel might be easier to produce than bio-petrol.
There's even a linguistic advantage. Most people call diesel diesel, no problem with petrol vs gasoline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roygbiv
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 233
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its interesting to see the pendulum swing from one side of the 'global warming' debate to the other. It has now become an industry and americas next nemesis or another thing for us all to worry about.
It is all part of man's attempt to fully understand and then conquer mother nature - who always comes up with another surprise. I have no doubt man will not even get near fully understanding and predicting nature in my or my childrens lifetime.
There is one thing for sure, nature will still be around long after mankind is extinct from either war, disease, disaster, etc .. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophocles
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 880
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:41 pm Post subject: climate change |
|
|
Sheesh, Bruce. Not again! The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is being pushed by the IPCC. The science behind it is not so great. In fact, you should be tuned into the UK House of Commons Parliamentary enquiry into the bad behaviour of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientists. It is hilarious----rather it would be if it weren't for the world's politicians swallowing the IPCC pronouncements based on their outputs. You can follow the links from Steve McIntyre's <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org>Climate Audit Blog"</a>
The AGW hypothesis is the IPCC's. The IPCC has decided:
1. It's all the fault of CO2 emitted by mankind's industries. This is despite the fact, that at about 347 to 380 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere now, it is still at or near the lowest level in the history of this planet. It was over 2000ppm about 100Mega Years ago, when the planet was slightly cooler than it is now (by about 0.5 degrees C or so).
2. | IPCC wrote: | | in the absence of other known drivers, it must be the increase in CO2 causing the increase in temperature ... (IPCC) |
The must be shows that this is an assumption, and is not proven, and is is wrong because there are other known drivers, and they have been the subject of some good research over the last decade: such as the Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillations . These are thought to have helped the rapid rise in temperature from 1910 to 1940, the cooling noticed over 1940 to 1970, then boosted the warming over 1970 to about 2000, and are responsible for some ot the cooling we're now experiencing. Cooling? Yes, Cooling. The IPCC is trying to ignore research which does not agree with its hypothesis, which is dangerous as a lot of emerging research is saying the IPCC is wrong. (see Dr Nir Shaviv's blog at http://www.sciencebits.com for the research into one major driver)
3, There is no cooling: it's all warming. = ostrich behaviour.
4. The Medieval and the Roman Warmings didn't happen. The IPCC loved Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. Unfortunately two Canadian statisticians called him on that as they recognised his incorrect use of a function which only gives hockey stick graphs when incorrectly used (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. see Steve McIntyre's climate audit blog.) Another one wrong: history in the form of written history tells us it did. The Greenland and Vostok ice cores tell us it did, and so do the sea-bed cores.
5. The Little Ice Age didn't happen. It did. Look at the Renaissance paintings, espec. the landscapes: the skys are almost uniformly cloudy and blackly so. Bad weather. Look at the witch hunts: the bad weather stuck around so long it had to be Satan's work. It wasn't. The mood of the peoples of Europe was driven by ergotism, which was responsible for mass hallucinations, mad crowds, gangrenous limbs etc. The LIA was cold and wet.
6. The 20th century is the hottest ever. Wrong: the Medieval warming was about 1.4 to 1.5 degrees warmer than the 20th century reached.
None of the above are supported by the Greenland and Vostok ice cores. None of the above points are supported by the sea bed cores.
Don't get your knickers in a twist about bad weather during a warming: there is a lower frequency of rough storms, and a higher frequency of calm weather. It's when things cool down that the weather gets rough. Read your history and pay attention to the authors from the late 17th century when the bad weather just didn't stop!
The IPCC has a bee in its bonnet and it is cherry-picking the science to support its hypothesis. This is the "damn lies" part of the "lies, damn lies and statistics" comment of Benjamin Disraelli. Trying to fit the evidence to an hypothesis is not science. Ergo, I no longer believe any utterance from the IPCC except for the three apologies they gave out over February this year. "Sorry we got that wrong." Damn right. I'm not holding my breath for the rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: Temps |
|
|
| Also remember that a few of the old USSR temperature station are no longer operating and that some are now next to airports etc which give a false reading because of the tar seal, concrete etc and the whole temperature thing looks completely different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superglue
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh no, not again! More b......t about IPCC and their lies. Some folk just don't get it that it doesn't matter what we as a race do, there ain't nothing we can do to change whats ever is going to happen to the world, be it warming, cooling, whatever. It's just a big money making game being played by the IPCC, lots of politicians, lots of scientists (of course only for their self interests), and helped along by a bunch of industries that stand to make a fortune out of the lies!
OOH I cant wait for the backlash again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: Re: The headless chicken of climate change... (10 Mar 2010) |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0310.shtml
Are we really thinking hard enough about the best way to deal with climate change, or are we stumbling from stuff-up to stuff-up with band-aid fixes for a much larger problem?
If recent reports are to be believed, our attempts to fix other environmental issues have exacerbated the effects of climate change quite significantly. |
Changes that we have caused.
| Quote: | | Reducing air pollution has nearly doubled the projected rate of global warming. |
Pollution that has concealed inevitable change. The CO2 was/is still pushing the ocean pH down, the soot was/is still damaging the Himalayan glaciers.
| Quote: | | Reducing the ozone hole as accelerated the thaw of Antarctic ice. |
Gosh, it's amazing that Antarctica survived millions of years before we started dumping CFCs into the atmosphere to 'protect' it.
| Quote: | So what will the unintended side-effect of slashing carbon emissions be? Perhaps a collapse of the food chain due to reduced ('plunging' even  ) rates of plant and plankton growth? |
The planet has adequate amounts of CO2 without human intervention. It's part of the mechanism that keeps the surface temp about 32° warmer than it would be at our orbital distance from the sun and the current solar output. Gaia and all that....
The problem is the additional fossil CO2 that we're dumping faster than the natural cycle can sequester it. In fact our stupidity is wrecking the natural mechanism (plankton converting CO2 into carbonates that eventually becomes limestone.... the lowering pH is stuffing their ability to make carbonate shells)
| Quote: | | If we don't look before we leap, we risk making things much worse than they already are -- that's been proven twice now. |
Well, you got that one right. Except for the 'proven twice' bit.
| Quote: | | Are politicians just too keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it empowers them to introduce new taxes, laws and bureaucracy? |
Oh, and maybe saving the planet for our grandchildren and grandchildren's grandchildren. But who gives a toss about them? What have they ever done for us?
| Quote: | | Are scientists keen to jump on the "reduce carbon emissions" bandwagon because it assures them of a job and respect as "saviours of the planet"? |
They feel they have a responsibility to warn humanity of the dangers ahead. None of us will have any jobs if we don't heed those warnings. There is no Planet B.
| Quote: | | Who's actually standing back and looking at the big-picture from a longer-term perspective, instead of engaging in these knee-jerk responses? |
Any volunteers? Judging from the dreary same-old same-old collection of long-rebutted errors, distortions and outright lies this column has dredged up there's f**k all around here. Sometimes banging your head on a brick wall hurts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 22
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am with you Sophocles and definitely don't agree with the AGW argument , but I am all for reducing pollution , finding renewable energy sources etc. Interesting article today from the same site referenced by Bruce
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308095840.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The unintended consequences of our actions do need to be looked at. Hydrogen power is a classic example. The only output is water, what could be cleaner is the mantra.
Trouble is water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas and it has a direct impact on the local weather. What is the impact of increasing the water vapour levels over our cities? Could we affect local weather patterns? Can this have an affect on bigger weather patterns? What happens when you bring a lot of water vapour places like LA which used to be a desert? Suddenly reletively inert CO2 doesn't look so bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | The unintended consequences of our actions do need to be looked at. Hydrogen power is a classic example. The only output is water, what could be cleaner is the mantra. |
Cr*p! Hydrogen power is a red herring devised by Bush Jr and his cronies. It always was a non-starter for ameliorating our liquid fuel profligacy because, quite apart from being a total bitch of a material to store, handle and convert to mechanical movement, doesn't exist as a fuel, except in small quantities from, surprise, surprise, natural gas wells. Otherwise it requires considerable quantities of electricity to manufacture and in case you hadn't noticed, electricity doesn't grow on trees.
| Quote: | | Trouble is water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas and it has a direct impact on the local weather. |
Utter ordure!! Yes, water vapour is a powerful GHG, but it is highly dynamic and constantly moving in and out of the atmosphere at rates dependent on other factors like surprise, surprise, the amount of CO2 trapping heat. This is such fundamental knowledge I'm appalled you even contemplate raising it as yet another red herring. Another denialist dirty trick... keep relentlessly repeating the bulls**t until someone believes it.
| Quote: | | What is the impact of increasing the water vapour levels over our cities? Could we affect local weather patterns? Can this have an affect on bigger weather patterns? What happens when you bring a lot of water vapour places like LA which used to be a desert? Suddenly reletively inert CO2 doesn't look so bad. |
Well, that string of ill-informed conjecture pretty well fizzles out. Amazing thought it may seem, it does rain even in LA, that's why they have those huge concrete river canyons so beloved of Hollywood for car chases. The amount of water vapour derived from H2 powered cars would be infinitesimal compared to that coming in off the Pacific ocean, which in case you hadn't noticed, is just west of LA. We would have more to worry about from the vast quantities (by comparison) of highly inflammable O2 hanging around the H2 factories wherever they are, since the only useful way of producing H2 is the electrolysis of water requiring a lot of electricity, which, blah, blah, (see above). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article indeed, Ross. Collect CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels, convert it to CO (a particularly toxic gas) and use that to do work or make byproducts like alcohol, both of which sooner or later produce CO2. 
It does raise two interesting questions: What do you reckon the EROI for these processes would be?
and
Are you prepared to invest any of your hard-earned dosh to find out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: |
Interesting article indeed, Ross. Collect CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels, convert it to CO (a particularly toxic gas) and use that to do work or make byproducts like alcohol, both of which sooner or later produce CO2.
It does raise two interesting questions: What do you reckon the EROI for these processes would be?
and
Are you prepared to invest any of your hard-earned dosh to find out? |
You are starting to come over like a religious fanatic over the GW debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwin
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1230
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's ban science and religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marg
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:24 am Post subject: Why there is global warming in New Zealand |
|
|
From Brian Rudman in today's Herald on Wellington
They're so desperate to be better than Auckland that a few years back, Mayor Mark Blumsky's council paid the Government-owned MetService $100,000 to shift the temperature gauge used to provide forecast material for television news to a warmer spot.
Mr Blumsky proposed the thermometer be shifted to the sheltered micro-climate on the lawn in front of the Michael Fowler Centre, a spot rival forecasters claimed was about 1.5C warmer than the traditional, more exposed airport and Kelburn hills sites.
Taupo's answer. http://www.taupodc.govt.nz/latest_news/New-weather-station-tells-Taupos-true-temperature/ Note the concrete and electric what looks like a heat pump compressor also vehicles and dark ground. How many other world wide sites are as the above or moved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwin
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1230
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:37 am Post subject: Re: Why there is global warming in New Zealand |
|
|
| marg wrote: | | and electric what looks like a heat pump compressor |
Well if it is a heat pump (being used to head a building) then it's spitting out cold air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superglue
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: | Another denialist dirty trick... keep relentlessly repeating the bulls**t until someone believes it.
|
Gee where have I heard that before ?????
Oh I know - um IPCC, um Al Gore, um AGW bu..sh...ers, um Ian O...
" keep relentlessly repeating the bulls**t and the general thick public believes it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| superglue wrote: | | Ian O wrote: | Another denialist dirty trick... keep relentlessly repeating the bulls**t until someone believes it.
|
Gee where have I heard that before ????? Oh I know - um IPCC, um Al Gore, um AGW bu..sh...ers, um Ian O...
" keep relentlessly repeating the bulls**t and the general thick public believes it." |
Except that IPCC & Gore et al, base their claims on observed changes and measurements, not on wistful thinking.
We were talking about spiders at the Ellerslie Flower Show today and Simon Pollard commented on the sex life of certain American species that, like the praying mantis, indulge in a little cannibalism during courtship. It was postulated that the male sacrifices himself for the good of his offspring and the species, but this was rejected by Simon on the grounds that individual spiders couldn't care less about the species, it's all about the individual.
It struck me that this is pretty much like much of humanity, especially around here. Ultimately, it's all about 'me' and sod the species. If ensuring my greatgrandchildren have somewhere to live means 'me' having to forego a big plasma TV, trips to Europe and a 5L car, then it's hey-ho and off to town we go. Which suggests that some of us haven't advanced much above arthropods... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: | | Except that IPCC & Gore et al, base their claims on observed changes and measurements, not on wistful thinking. |
Don't make me bloody laugh. Big Al is full of tuti and the IPCC isn't far behind.
You do remember what happened in England about Al's little film and how it was taken to court and several untruths were uncovered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikebartnz wrote: | | Ian O wrote: | | Except that IPCC & Gore et al, base their claims on observed changes and measurements, not on wistful thinking. |
Don't make me bloody laugh. Big Al is full of tuti and the IPCC isn't far behind.
You do remember what happened in England about Al's little film and how it was taken to court and several untruths were uncovered. |
Nine actually. Out of thousands of truths (however inconvenient)
From "Skeptical Science"
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?
The skeptic argument...
"An Inconvenient Truth was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted 'nine scientific errors'. For example, Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed 'an exact fit'. The judge said 'the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts'. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established." (The Guardian)
(note that the judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect)
What the science says...
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.
It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics.
What Al got right
Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.
Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.
Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.
Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.
What Al got wrong
Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."
Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions.
-----------
Note also that since the movie was released, climate changes have continued to accumulate, with little if any improvement. The glaciers continue to retreat, the Arctic ice is collapsing, the tundra permafrost moves northward, the Siberian methane clathrates bubble, the American forests succumb to pine beetle and the insurance companies continue to be pummeled by rising weather related claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry Ian O but you are pushing tuti uphill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mikebartnz wrote: | | Sorry Ian O but you are pushing tuti uphill. |
You lost me there. You don't understand? You choose not to believe any of those rebuttals and explanations because it might disturb established beliefs?
You may not like it, Mike me ol' china, but the planet doesn't care whether you believe it. If something disturbs the biosphere's equilibrium like an in/decrease of solar output, a comet slamming into the Caribbean, the rhythm of the Earth's orbit & tilt, or a massive increase in atmospheric GHGs, the climate changes and may take millions of years to restabilise. You and the rest of us may not like the effects of those changes but if we don't pull finger and restrain our releases of fossil carbon and destruction of the natural sinks, we (or our descendants) will just have to take them on the chin.
I take it you don't have any descendants and are unlikely to have any. Funny how they change your focus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarrenG
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mikebartnz wrote: | | Sorry Ian O but you are pushing tuti uphill. |
What a magnificent rebuttal! The painstaking way you expose the flaws in your opponent's hypothesis is a veritable tour de force of reason and logic. Truly, one cannot help but marvel at your intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarrenG
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: Re: The headless chicken of climate change... (10 Mar 2010) |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | Or maybe we ought to just ditch this whole electric car and hybrid concept, returning instead to those old bangers of the 1960s which belched smoke every time you pulled away from the lights. |
The 1960s? I was stuck behind one on Thursday night! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarrenG wrote: | | mikebartnz wrote: | | Sorry Ian O but you are pushing tuti uphill. |
What a magnificent rebuttal! The painstaking way you expose the flaws in your opponent's hypothesis is a veritable tour de force of reason and logic. Truly, one cannot help but marvel at your intellect. |
Quite frankly it isn't worth rebutting because I don't believe CO2 is the danger they would have us believe and like I said previously the whole thing is like a bunch of religious fanatics going off the deep end.
While saying that we as humans are stupid not to reduce our pollution as much as possible but I have noticed quite a few greens are not as green as they would like us to believe.
There is only one real cure and that is to reduce the worlds population and dramatically. Back in the early 50's we had a population of about 1,500,000 now it is around 4mill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikebartnz
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Wairarapa
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: | | You may not like it, Mike me ol' china, but the planet doesn't care whether you believe it. |
Snap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:28 am Post subject: best argument against global warming |
|
|
| mikebartnz wrote: | | Ian O wrote: | | You may not like it, Mike me ol' china, but the planet doesn't care whether you believe it. |
Snap. |
By coincidence, there was an op-ed published today on this very aspect 
Here is the best argument against global warming:
. . . .
Oh, right. There isn’t one.
There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:
Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.
Deniers don’t like the idea of climate change, they don’t believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don’t like the implications of climate change, they don’t like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don’t like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.
read on at http://tinyurl.com/ybqqorx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
