Global warming hey...?

[Sunfish]

Someone who subscribes to the left wing of politics will disagree with someone on the right wing of politics on almost every single subject you care to bring up....

I love aircraft and know they can only fly with both wings intact.

Politically a nation is similar. Sadly our left wing is disconnecting from the body of our aircraft and neither the disconnected wing nor the body and the right wing, still attached, can survive.

I'm almost 70yrs old and have never before felt such desperation for an election.

Note: I have voted labor most of my life.

 

[Belbo]

I love aircraft and know they can only fly with both wings intact.

Politically a nation is similar. Sadly our let wing is disconnecting from the body of our aircraft and neither the disconnected wing nor the body and the right wing, still attached, can survive.

I'm almost 70yrs old and have never before felt such desperation for an election.

Note: I have voted labor most of my life.

The transition I speak of, with respect.

 

[mr-ed]

La Nina

Become aware of the history of La Nina after travelling through Peru and Bolivia, Sept last year.

There os 25% chance of a La Nina (the femail currents)
There is 25% chance of a El Nino ( the male currents)
50% chance of normal.

The Peruvian fishermen discovered the fenominum (sp?)

During La Nina, the cold, oxegenated sea currents travel up from Antartica, following the west coast of South America to the Galopicus Islands.
Generations of fishermen new that during La Nina, these waters are full of fish, feeding on krill etc.

These currents head up to the top of the Pacific Ocean, then turning anti-clockwise, back down the top and East coast of Australia. Bringing wet summers. Can also cause droughts in Africa.

Was informed that it was extra, extra cold in the Bolivian Alta Plana last year.
Sign of a strong La Nina. This year there was blizards. So even colder, maybe a other La Nina?

Let Me just say that I am wary of scientists speaking through their pocket!

 

[Sunfish]

Let Me just say that I am wary of scientists speaking through their pocket!

Et tu?......

 

[locko24]

I'm not at all convinced it's so two-sided, nor that anyone's 'wing' is so set in stone.

Reminds me of a quote:

How can you soar with the eagles... erm... when your wing is set in stone. [sic].

 

[Belbo]

Reminds me of a quote:

How can you soar with the eagles... erm... when your wing is set in stone. [sic].

What in God's name are you on about now, Locko? Damn, you're a cracker!

And Mr Ed's all but gone native, to boot. Peruvian what?

Sunfish has gone sun-blind: Who's his latest Sun God?

AlmostBob said almost what? That he almost said what Dazz said?

Woah!

 

[cu@thetop]

Belbo left wing?

Dazz right wing?

Say it isn't so! Has the whole world gone topsy turvy?!?

PS
I'm a swinging voter and have voted for both majors and a few minorities in the past. Won't be voting Greens again for a while. Which major (ie left or right?)- I'll decide on the day. Probably the party who has the girl with the biggest t*ts handing out propaganda, Who knows.

 

[BayView]

I should add that the hottest Dec 8th was in 1873 (38.4 deg)

This is one of the common things you see on the news each night, and makes me laugh my head off.

"Today we saw a maximum temp of 35.6 degrees....the hottest day since 1852".

It's amazing how often these hot days are more than 100 years since the last really scorching one.

Now that I've brought this to your attention; just see how often this statement is made on the news each night.

I wonder how many were thinking the world was about to catch flames and flood from melted ice way back then when the joint seemed to be equally as hot as now?

 

[BayView]

Huh ? global warming is happening, it's not some "theory". Plenty of evidence behind it, if anyone cares to look, which many here clearly haven't and seem to be proud of their ignorance.

Maybe NASA can help you understand http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I like the bit on that home page about the Maldives:
"Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise".

So, last time I looked, my own Port Philip Bay was also part of the same big bucket of water that the Maldives sits in, and apparently we aren't vulnerable to sea level rises - otherwise we would have rated a mention.....

Now, forgive my ignorance here, but if we are all in the same bucket, and the water in that bucket rises, then wouldn't every piece of land on earth be experiencing a rise in water levels?

And finally; "Extreme Events"..............

I remember as a kid going to see a Creedence Clearwater Revival concert at Festival Hall (a birthday present) in Feb, 1972.

When we came out at the end of the concert, the cars in the car park were up to the doors from rain flooding. Not bad for a few hours at most.

Also, I remember around that same time a tidal wave-caused flood in Bangladesh that killed around 300,000 people from memory (or was it more?)

And to say that the oceans have increased in temp by .3 of a degree in the last 40 years. Give me a break. I'm quaking in me boots I is.

 

[pieman]

evidence

• 150 000 years of ice core samples giving CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
• 10-13th century Europe years without snow, people pictured barefoot in all seasons, bayeux tapestry images
• Dickens 'A christmas carol' young boy runs through the streets of London to buy the last giant goose for Mr Scrooge to take to Bob Cratchit's house. Barefoot christmas day, no snow 1843, thats a detail an author would not spuriously add, at this point the tale is not for laughing

the current scientific state

This actually supports the effects of CO2 levels on the earths temperature. It indicates how the climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming that we're now causing.
Over the period of this graph, there has been many different forces that have influenced the Earth’s climate. The sun has got brighter and consequently the planet receives more energy and warms. When natural events happen like volcanoes erupting, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet then cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like C02 levels that have been increasing as a result of burning fossil fuels and deforistisation, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcing's because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

Here's something worth viewing that debunks the 1500 year cycle championed by experts (puppets) of the petroleum industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[lizzie]

This actually supports the effects of CO2 levels on the earths temperature. It indicates how the climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming that we're now causing.

Gosh - I thought the total opposite from that graph and debunked (for reason I said above).

Just goes to show that two different people, looking at the same information, see two different results.

My first impression was something dramatic occured around 1300 ... when the vikings discovered Canada ... as there was a seriously dramatic plunge in temperatures. Way before humans were more than a dot on the landscape and certainly not burning fossil fuels other than a wee bit 'o peat.

Secondly - real and accurate temperature recording have only been available for the last 150 or so years, and the precise measurements on the graph reflects that with dips and peaks - whereas, over milleniums in time, these dips and peaks would show up on "guestimates" as a more even distribution.

Thirdly - the major burning of fossil fuels didn't occur until the mid/end of the 1900's but still on a minor level with the industrial revolution in Europe ... and population didn't start to increase dramatically until around 1920/30 ... and scientists are saying that it then takes many decades for this burning to affect temperatures - yet temperatures have been shown as fluctuating wildly since accurate measurements were available.

This tells me that it was more the ability to take true, short period measurements, rather than relying on random core samples, that is the basis for claiming climate change.

If anything, for me it debunks the claims of human induced change ... although ... I do believe that we do have some affect, that the world is overpopulated and that we need to be more accountable and sustainable.

Unfortunately, those with the intellect, ability and resources to do such are in the minority. The majority (and, yes, I am being general here) who are the ones that are breeding en masse either don't have the intellect, the ability or the resources.

Now - where was that 10acre farm and that straw mud house I was looking at?

 

[pieman]

My first impression was something dramatic occured around 1300 ... when the vikings discovered Canada ... as there was a seriously dramatic plunge in temperatures. Way before humans were more than a dot on the landscape and certainly not burning fossil fuels other than a wee bit 'o peat.
Obviously there must have been natural forcings to force temperature fluctuations. To argue that this means humans can’t cause climate change is like arguing that we can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturaly. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a more rapid rate.

Secondly - real and accurate temperature recording have only been available for the last 150 or so years, and the precise measurements on the graph reflects that with dips and peaks - whereas, over milleniums in time, these dips and peaks would show up on "guestimates" as a more even distribution.
Drilling in glaciers and using ice cores, for instance, scientists can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere for 1000's of years with a great deal of accuracy.

As malcolm turnball said "We must treat the science with respect and rely on the best science which is the only responsible and prudent thing to do."
Looking at what the climatolgists agree on here it seems 99.9% likely that humans are causing some type of climate change.


The paper finishes with "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

 

[kathryn d]

Everyone should be a tightwad like me
Reduce, reuse and recylce as much as possible.

I do it because it is the right thing to do.

I don't need to have extra taxes forced upon me to comply.


Note: I happened to come across a website last night, where they have reusable toilet paper.(like small cloth diapers, that are stored in pail until wash day)

I'm not against the concept, as I used cloth diapers for all my 3 babies, but Rob didn't think we needed to go that far

 

[gooram]

I like the bit on that home page about the Maldives:
"Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise".

So, last time I looked, my own Port Philip Bay was also part of the same big bucket of water that the Maldives sits in, and apparently we aren't vulnerable to sea level rises - otherwise we would have rated a mention.....

Now, forgive my ignorance here, but if we are all in the same bucket, and the water in that bucket rises, then wouldn't every piece of land on earth be experiencing a rise in water levels?

And finally; "Extreme Events"..............

I remember as a kid going to see a Creedence Clearwater Revival concert at Festival Hall (a birthday present) in Feb, 1972.

When we came out at the end of the concert, the cars in the car park were up to the doors from rain flooding. Not bad for a few hours at most.

Also, I remember around that same time a tidal wave-caused flood in Bangladesh that killed around 300,000 people from memory (or was it more?)

And to say that the oceans have increased in temp by .3 of a degree in the last 40 years. Give me a break. I'm quaking in me boots I is.

All you are saying here is "I don't understand and I'm not going to try".

If you put me and my 2ft tall son in a pool and then filled the pool to 3 ft, who is more vulnerable?

Please tell us more about stuff that you remember.

 

[lizzie]

Looking at what the climatolgists agree on here it seems 99.9% likely that humans are causing some type of climate change.

I don't disagree with this - which is why I believe we should reduce population (1 have only one child) and become more sustainable (which is why I have a roof full of solar panels etc).

I just believe that with only 150yrs of "accurate" measurements - because everything before that time, even core sampling, is not accurate - we don't really understand what has gone on in the past and what is occuring now.

I don't believe a lumping big tax that will be mostly used to pamper to those who are the worst offenders will resolve anything ... the fundamentals of population growth, power sustainability and self sufficiency needs to be addressed as a country.

 

[kathryn d]

I don't disagree with this - which is why I believe we should reduce population (1 have only one child) and become more sustainable (which is why I have a roof full of solar panels etc).

I gave birth to 3 kids, but raised 4...but they all WORK.
I can offer suggestions of who shouldn't have kids

 

[joeExpat]

What chance have we got when people prefer to believe local/childhood anecdotes, crappy debunked graphs and Dickens christmas stories over real data & near 100% consensus amongst scientific bodies.

 

[Belbo]

Belbo left wing?

Dazz right wing?

Say it isn't so! Has the whole world gone topsy turvy?!?

PS
I'm a swinging voter and have voted for both majors and a few minorities in the past. Won't be voting Greens again for a while. Which major (ie left or right?)- I'll decide on the day. Probably the party who has the girl with the biggest t*ts handing out propaganda, Who knows.

But CU, I quite honestly LOVE capitalism. I think it's a wonderful social system both morally for individuals (in that it principally rewards personal effort), and societally (in that it facilitates rational resource allocation for the benefit of all).

I think the problem is that I love democracy too. You know, as in equality of everybody under the law, the principle of protection for the weak, the right of the public to influence public policy (i.e. what ordinary Aussies have always called in our post-convict history 'just getting a fair go').

It's not a left-right thing at all, at least in the traditional capitalism vs socialism sense. Some people just think that if at any point there's a tension between capitalism and democracy, it's democracy that should be scaled back. That's neither liberalism nor conservatism: That's what's known as 'neo-conservatism'.

I have no problem whatsoever with the democratic right wing: They want just the same things that I want, but simply propose different ways from others of getting there. I'm obliged for their thoughtful input into the debate. But anti-democratic neo-conservatism's offer is to simply shut down the public debate. You know; as in 'take heed of your betters', and, 'resistance is futile'.

Being a swinging voter is precisely what democracy is all about - until it comes down one day to a choice between electing for democracy or not. Then you'd want to be very careful who you vote for, wouldn't you?

(As for your personal weakness in respect to the guiles of ladyfolk, I confess to near-total immune-deficiency myself, and so can be of no more assistance than to advise: Whet your appetite where you may, but always - always - remember to eat at home.)

 

[AlmostBob]

I did not write leftist or rightist,
I loathe being misquoted, and misrepresented
a lazy way to try to reduce, an opposing argument

I wrote

someone with a more leftist bent
someone with a more rightist bent

could be 49 & 51 on a scale /100 just that A is more/less than B

 

[The Fence]

There are cases of where 100% consensis created methods/policy such as snake bite treatment and has since been completely changed as the original treatment actually made the bite and resultant poisoning worse...

TC will confirm that farmers used to till their land across the slopes and put in contour banks.....to direct runoff.

That has since been debunked and they now completely go the other way, straight down the slope and knockd out all the contour banks.

What if this so called near 100% consensis is wrong....?

There is another one looming, that of the nutritional type. fat is good, not bad...!! carbs are bad, not good. Sugar is bad and always will be.

Climate has always changed and always will.