The Great Global Warming Swindle

[STEALTHY™]

Um, so what was your point? Seems like your agreeing with me.

Global warming had nothing to do with this fire, as commsirwhatever claimed it did.

 

[alien]

Um, so what was your point? Seems like your agreeing with me.

Global warming had nothing to do with this fire, as commsirwhatever claimed it did.

I was only posting in reply to your comments i quoted. Not agreeing with you, definatly the climate change had an affect [read my post before my last one] due to drying out the "fuel". Yes there was buildup, that has been argued about for a long time actually, and it's no surprise. But when the fuel is in a hotter temperature it is easier to ignite. Again, like i said try a piece of dry dead bark from the ground in the summer in 42 degree heat and then try another piece of dead bark from the same type of tree from the ground in the middle of winter when the temperature has a maximum of 12! You'll understand then the corrolation between temperature and how quickly a fire can start and spread.

 

[thestig]

Lets roll the dice.

Almost everyone, including the media (which is politically driven and often ignorant of scientific fact and/or method), seems to be taking all this the wrong way.

Global warming is exactly that, GLOBAL. It can not be related to or pinned on a particular local event such as the bushfires that are being debated here. Freak events occur regardless of general trends. Global warming is about a trend, an increase in average global tempreature over a reasonable period of time.

If you take all the tempreature measurements made by all the weather stations across the globe, and take an average of those measurements you see a long term trend of increase, whats more, the rate at which that increase is taking place is far higher than, or contrary to, that predicted by the natural cycles of the Earth's climate. In other words without the intervention of civilisation there would be less heat energy in the atmosphere.

At this time the differences are slight, to say that people died in the bushfires because of global warming is debatable. To say that more people died than usual is correct. To say that the weather conditions contributed to the higher than usual death toll is also correct. To say that these weather conditions are a result of global warming, is not yet certain.

However, the more we see freak weather events occurring, the more likely it is that global warming is to blame. The event becomes part of a continuing trend. The more events fit into the trend the stronger the evidence in favor of that trend. And this particular trend is contrary to any previously established pattern.

Our best scientific models are showing us of the posibility of global catastrophe, the more we study, the harder we look, the more we find the probability of such events increase.

Nothing is yet for certian, but I know where I am going to place my bet!!

L8r

P.S. Has anyone tried to insure a coastal home against flood damage recently??

 

[commsirac]

LOL, a fairly predictable response from the "but the arsonists light the fire" brigade.

Perhaps have a look at:
Heatwave update and open letter to the PM BraveNewClimate.com

What will it take to convince people like Stealthy(yes what evidence would satisfy your stringent scrutiny) that there is something happening and that the time to take action is now, waiting for the daily average to be 3C hotter, it will be too late! (please tell us so the world can move forwards)
Perhaps more to the point, how can people (who typically have no scientific qualifications of any recognition...correct me if Im wrong here) dispute all the findings of the majority of scientists world wide?, what flaws have you/they uncovered in the research/investigations/predictions.

We are assuming that most here have moved on to"Arguing that the earth has always got hotter and colder" rather than the warming isnt happening, , but what is causing it to heat up so quickly now? in the past there has always been some event causation as to why.

If you are going to reject the rising CO2 explanation(despite real experiments that show that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb IR radiation and cause warming of the other gases around it), what else can you attribute it to,
1oh, the popular sunspot idea.....no that has been laid to rest by reputable experts on the matter)
2: the CO2 concentrations are the cause but man isnt responsible......then what is?

I wont hold my breath for some replies that address this properly.:whistling

 

[Azp]

Suggest you need to look at a little more info than what you see on docos,:Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist would be a good start.
Your concern with methane is well founded, but emissions of methane are also linked to CO2 emissions, perhaps you are not familar with the problems of the tundra:Global Warming: Methane Could Be Far Worse Than Carbon Dioxide - Health Supreme

Thanks for the links, both were good reads. I'm just not sure if I buy into the New Scientist article which suggests that human CO2 emissions are at 3.8% and that this is the straw that broke the camel's back because this is upsetting the earths delicate balance of natural emissions and natural absorption. Most scientists say that CO2 levels have not been balanced for the last 700,000 years that we have ice records for and probably never will.

 

[Tsunamix]

Australia's biggest producer of CardonDioxide (and other greenhouse gas) is the electricity Generation Industry - Specifically coal burning Power Stations - About 44% of all of australia's greenhouse gases.

the second largest producer of Methane is the cattle industry. About 31% The rest of the numbers are made up by landfill (garbage dumps produce alot of methane), Aerosol products, airconditioning products, natural decay by-products, motor vehicles and burnt plastics.

Motor Vehicles are contributing about 11% of Australia's greenhouse gases.

yes these numbers are debatable, but they are published by CSIRO, so I guess there relatively close.

Yes - the best think you can do to ease global warming concerns is plant a tree. Plant a few. The average gum tree, as it grows to full height, will take about 2.2 tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere per year. That's carbon, not carbon dioxide. When it reaches full height, that reduces to about 0.6 tonnes per year.

So go plant a hundred trees, cut them down at 15 years old and let them rot (take the carbon back into the ground - not burn into the atmosphere).

 

[minux]

I know this isn't really relative...

How much is carbon really causing the issue? Surely the massive amounts of chemicals that go into the ground each year cannot be good, especially manufactured ones that are made to kill all living plants(Such as Vapam can mention this as I used it quite often and when mixed with water is toxic...).

I can only imagine the effect using such chemicals would have on land, waterways etc which in turn effects fauna, animals which in turn unbalances nature in general. It seems so much emphasis is going on carbon emissions when really so many chemicals go through this earth.