In the first major paper of its kind, a new study in the February 17 Nature has found that heavy precipitation is at least partly due to the growing concentration of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. A team of scientists from Canada and Scotland used powerful computers to analyze the causes behind the rise in storms and heavy snowfall over the past half century. They found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% between 1951 and 1999—the years covered by the study. That's outside the bounds of normal variability, and the increase only make sense if rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are taken into effect. "Human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," said Francis Zwiers, a climate researcher at Environment Canada in Toronto and the study's lead researcher.

That conclusion shouldn't be that surprising—climatologists have predicted an uptick in extreme weather events as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Since warmer air can carry more water vapor, a warmer planet should see heavier rain and other precepitation—and that's what we've begun to see with actual weather. As an accompanying article to the Nature studies points out, for every 1 C in warming near the Earth's surface, scientists expect a 2-3% increase in total global precipitation.

But it's not global precipitation patterns that should really worry us—it's local rainfall, either too much or too little. We need scientists to be able to tell us whether a certain flood or a certain drought actually can be tied to global warming. And in another study published in Nature this week, that's exactly what a team of climatologists set out to do. With help from computer time donated by the public, the researchers analyzed the severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, leading to some of the worst flooding in British history. They looked at the climate as it actually existed at the time, and then compared it to hypothetical climates as they would have been if human beings had never begun adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The researchers concluded that the chances of such a major flood happening at that time were roughly doubled by the rise in greenhouse gases. "Greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity have affected the odds of floods in England and Wales," said physicist Pardeep Pall of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), who led the Nature research.

Given the billions of dollars for climate adaptation at stake, it's vital for scientists to deliver more rapid and accurate analysis of extreme weather events—like climate change CSI. But we're not there yet—the Nature study of the 2000 floods took a decade of work and incredibly complex computer simulations. But we'll need better analysis not just to predict coming extreme weather events and prepare for them—something that could have averted much of the damage from the terrible floods in Pakistan last summer—but in assigning cause and blame. That will matter for the business world—insurance companies will want to know just what caused devastating floods or storms as they pay out their claims. But it will also impact international climate negotiations. If developing countries—already on the front lines of global warming—can prove that carbon emissions from rich countries are causing what we once referred to as natural catastrophes, they may well be justified in demanding the equivalent of carbon reparations.


http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/17/new-studies-show-that-climate-change-is-the-culprit-in-extreme-rain/


So the science mounts ... when will the hard right embrace science and back Greens policies like a 40% cut in CO2 pollution. If they don't it's enough evidence to call the Liberals and the National Party's financially reckless.

Further reading :

Devastating floods are now twice as likely thanks to climate change, scientists claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1357988/Devastating-floods-twice-likely-thanks-climate-change-scientists-claim.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Climate change pushing up food prices: Minister

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article918393.ece/Climate-change-pushing-up-food-prices--Minister/

Figures warns tackling climate change is critical to world peace


http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2026780/figueres-warns-tackling-climate-change-critical-world-peace/

I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made..

take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore..

wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?...

have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year..

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:43am:

I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year..

This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution.

If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying.


Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless.

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:

In the first major paper of its kind, a new study in the February 17 Nature has found that heavy precipitation is at least partly due to the growing concentration of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. A team of scientists from Canada and Scotland used powerful computers to analyze the causes behind the rise in storms and heavy snowfall over the past half century. They found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% between 1951 and 1999—the years covered by the study. That's outside the bounds of normal variability, and the increase only make sense if rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are taken into effect. "Human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," said Francis Zwiers, a climate researcher at Environment Canada in Toronto and the study's lead researcher. That conclusion shouldn't be that surprising—climatologists have predicted an uptick in extreme weather events as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Since warmer air can carry more water vapor, a warmer planet should see heavier rain and other precepitation—and that's what we've begun to see with actual weather. As an accompanying article to the Nature studies points out, for every 1 C in warming near the Earth's surface, scientists expect a 2-3% increase in total global precipitation. But it's not global precipitation patterns that should really worry us—it's local rainfall, either too much or too little. We need scientists to be able to tell us whether a certain flood or a certain drought actually can be tied to global warming. And in another study published in Nature this week, that's exactly what a team of climatologists set out to do. With help from computer time donated by the public, the researchers analyzed the severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, leading to some of the worst flooding in British history. They looked at the climate as it actually existed at the time, and then compared it to hypothetical climates as they would have been if human beings had never begun adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The researchers concluded that the chances of such a major flood happening at that time were roughly doubled by the rise in greenhouse gases. "Greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity have affected the odds of floods in England and Wales," said physicist Pardeep Pall of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), who led the Nature research. Given the billions of dollars for climate adaptation at stake, it's vital for scientists to deliver more rapid and accurate analysis of extreme weather events—like climate change CSI. But we're not there yet—the Nature study of the 2000 floods took a decade of work and incredibly complex computer simulations. But we'll need better analysis not just to predict coming extreme weather events and prepare for them—something that could have averted much of the damage from the terrible floods in Pakistan last summer—but in assigning cause and blame. That will matter for the business world—insurance companies will want to know just what caused devastating floods or storms as they pay out their claims. But it will also impact international climate negotiations. If developing countries—already on the front lines of global warming—can prove that carbon emissions from rich countries are causing what we once referred to as natural catastrophes, they may well be justified in demanding the equivalent of carbon reparations. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/17/new-studies-show-that-climate-change-is-the-culprit-in-extreme-rain/ So the science mounts ... when will the hard right embrace science and back Greens policies like a 40% cut in CO2 pollution. If they don't it's enough evidence to call the Liberals and the National Party's financially reckless.

Sounds like crap to me green.
By the way, which tea leaves did they use, or did they just read sign in cats intestines this time the old fashioned way.
Or was it from icy poles pulled out from the north pole again?
These slapnuts obviously havent heard of El Nino & La Nina.

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:51am:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless.

woody you like PANIC.. and they will tell you anything.. then 20 years from now they will say  hu hum we got it wrong..they are allowed to get it wrong.

I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything...

but look you believe what you like woody I have no problems with that..

but dont tell me to believe what scientists say when they have been discredited so many times.. and what we are seeing has gone on many times in the past billion or so years the planet has been in existence.

we havent the POWER mate we really havent..you believe it all you like but you and they or Al will never convince me.


did you know Christmas Island is the peak of a vulcano?......yes it is now how did that end up flooded?

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

____ wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:51am: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless. woody you like PANIC.. and they will tell you anything.. then 20 years from now they will say  hu hum we got it wrong..they are allowed to get it wrong. I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything... but look you believe what you like woody I have no problems with that.. but dont tell me to believe what scientists say when they have been discredited so many times.. and what we are seeing has gone on many times in the past billion or so years the planet has been in existence. we havent the POWER mate we really havent..you believe it all you like but you and they or Al will never convince me. did you know Christmas Island is the peak of a vulcano?......yes it is now how did that end up flooded?

wow, this is the first time I have heard Noah being used as proof that Climate Change is faux.

Well done Mellie, you've reached new heights!


Climate Change can't possibly be happening... look at all the rain we're getting!  And you said the world is warming...fools.

;)

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything...

LMAO  ;D

I am actually quite gobsmacked. Using Noahs Ark to argue against what the worlds scientists are saying about global warming......
But then again I guess it is little different to the creationists arguing against what the worlds scientists are saying about evolution.

I am glad to know that reputable scientists are at least attempting to quantify the possible negative aspects of us having failed to mitigate our carbon emissions.
The 7% figure quoted from the report, puts it far beyond what we could expect to see from any "natural" variation, and if I had to guess, I would expect they are being very conservative with their pronouncements, due to the obsessive denialist lobby group, which attempts to discredit any and all research which expands on our understanding of climate change.
This attack dog mentality from the denialist camp has seemed to make scientists extremely conservative, and cautious, when it comes to providing the technical backup to the anecdotal evidence we have all experienced, that the climate is changing, and now we are seeing more frequent, and more violent, extreme weather events, because of those changes.

I don't know how many more disastrous extreme weather events we will need to experience before the denialists give up their campaign of obstructing any policy which seeks to contain and curtail Carbon Emissions, but I do know that the longer they choose to block any action, the greater the toll will be for our kids.

But I guess a few more extreme tragedies can go down in the denialist hand book as being appropriate to respond to with, "Sh1t happens" (it is only natural). ;)

As with any religion, faith is always a crucial component.  Whenever Al Gore`s disciples see a natural disaster, they dance around in circles, clapping their hands & kissing the ground, yelling "It`s a miracle, IT`S A MIRACLE!".

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:51am:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless.

So you don't think that a drought ending has anything to do with increased rainfall Greens???

What exactly IS the 'natural patterns' for 2011???

You know what?
There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world.

And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age!

You know what?
It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible?

So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome.

This has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!  

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

BTW - when did humans cease to be part of nature? Are we now super-natural beings?

Isn't what we do part of nature?

Soren wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

BTW - when did humans cease to be part of nature? Are we now super-natural beings? Isn't what we do part of nature?

What has climate got to do with these fascists wanting to dictate our lives and tax us for breathing? :)

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 7:49am: I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything... LMAO  ;D I am actually quite gobsmacked. Using Noahs Ark to argue against what the worlds scientists are saying about global warming...... But then again I guess it is little different to the creationists arguing against what the worlds scientists are saying about evolution.

Mellie knows its true, the Unicorns live at her house. ;D ;D ;D what a tard.

Quote:

[b]This has never happened before!

And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain???

I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.  

YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen??

"Extreme Rain"

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 8:28am:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 7:49am: ____ wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:51am: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless. woody you like PANIC.. and they will tell you anything.. then 20 years from now they will say  hu hum we got it wrong..they are allowed to get it wrong. I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything... but look you believe what you like woody I have no problems with that.. but dont tell me to believe what scientists say when they have been discredited so many times.. and what we are seeing has gone on many times in the past billion or so years the planet has been in existence. we havent the POWER mate we really havent..you believe it all you like but you and they or Al will never convince me. did you know Christmas Island is the peak of a vulcano?......yes it is now how did that end up flooded? wow, this is the first time I have heard Noah being used as proof that Climate Change is faux. Well done Mellie, you've reached new heights! Climate Change can't possibly be happening... look at all the rain we're getting!  And you said the world is warming...fools. ;)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

HEY SUCKER.SKIP..

WHY DONT YOU TRY TAKING YOUR'RE HEAD OUT OF THAT DARK PLACE AND READING THE POST BEFORE YOU ANSWER.


THE POST WAS ABOUT HUMAN CAUSE JUST LIKE THE SCIENTIST CLAIM.

I think I have made it quite clear where I stand on Human caused climate change

CLIMATE CHANGE is not new.. its has been going on for MILLIONS OF YEARS..

THIS IS FOR SUCKERS SKIP.   get it?

Is "Extreme Rain" just like pissing down?   ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 7:49am: I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything... LMAO  ;D I am actually quite gobsmacked. Using Noahs Ark to argue against what the worlds scientists are saying about global warming...... But then again I guess it is little different to the creationists arguing against what the worlds scientists are saying about evolution.

is someone meant to understand that?

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 8:28am: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 7:49am: ____ wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:51am: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless. woody you like PANIC.. and they will tell you anything.. then 20 years from now they will say  hu hum we got it wrong..they are allowed to get it wrong. I use commonsense I know its old fashioned and not too many have it these days..but as Noah knows... in 40 days and 40 nights the world as it was then was flooded..and I believe that was looooooooooooooong before manmade anything... but look you believe what you like woody I have no problems with that.. but dont tell me to believe what scientists say when they have been discredited so many times.. and what we are seeing has gone on many times in the past billion or so years the planet has been in existence. we havent the POWER mate we really havent..you believe it all you like but you and they or Al will never convince me. did you know Christmas Island is the peak of a vulcano?......yes it is now how did that end up flooded? wow, this is the first time I have heard Noah being used as proof that Climate Change is faux. Well done Mellie, you've reached new heights! Climate Change can't possibly be happening... look at all the rain we're getting!  And you said the world is warming...fools. ;) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEY SUCKER.SKIP.. WHY DONT YOU TRY TAKING YOUR'RE HEAD OUT OF THAT DARK PLACE AND READING THE POST BEFORE YOU ANSWER. THE POST WAS ABOUT HUMAN CAUSE JUST LIKE THE SCIENTIST CLAIM. I think I have made it quite clear where I stand on Human caused climate change CLIMATE CHANGE is not new.. its has been going on for MILLIONS OF YEARS.. THIS IS FOR SUCKERS SKIP.   get it?

LOL

Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy?

LOL, cods was probably on the Ark bludging a free lift. ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

____ wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:51am: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. This is outside natural patterns, which prove this is caused by humans/ carbon pollution. If you don't believe me, then read what the scientists are saying. Climate War Costs, Food Shortages/ Crop Damage Cost, Infrastructure Damage Costs, Climate Refugee Costs, New Pests and Storms Cost, Climate Change Human Illness Costs. By Liberals and Nationals Denying Human Caused Climate Change Science, they are revealing they are financially reckless. So you don't think that a drought ending has anything to do with increased rainfall Greens??? What exactly IS the 'natural patterns' for 2011???

natural patterns what a hope talk about clutching at straws..

I have already mentioned on here about why the Ancient Egyptians disappeared..all done by scientists not weather ones though more the archaeologist types but never the less years of science and discovery. and yes the reason being a drought one that lasted many many years something like we would never know about..

if scientist .. Al Gore!! can prove to everyone that natural patterns have been a part of the globes weather history for millions of years..

I would like to see that.

simonhall1900 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Is "Extreme Rain" just like pissing down?   ;D

It's today's equivalent.

They never had bad storms before we started manufacturing you know.

I think the three Ice Ages were just a light dusting of frost.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen??

funny thing I thought the science had been refuted over and over again..

they cant even get the weather report right..lol..supposed to rain here again... wrong again...

Quote:

funny thing I thought the science had been refuted over and over again..

Only by retards, probably the offspring of the old world is flat brigade, watch out you dont fall off the side of the Earth,cods,LOL LOL LOL  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

simonhall1900 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Is "Extreme Rain" just like pissing down?   ;D

was that the stuff that turned up in Qld and then last night in Darwin..

they keep putting funny names to rain now so I kind of lose count.. if its rain or maybe wind..sometimes simon they come together.. now that could be a pattern!!!. which makes it all very different and it gets called another name..cyclone is a goody then they call it the cyclone season... why ever did they do do you think???????must be a pattern..mmm could be!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

Quote: This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain???

Actually, not a day over 2 billion!

Yes, unless you can tell me of another time "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet?

skippy. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy?

not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all.

that great well known scientist!

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy? not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all. that great well known scientist!

I think Noah would be pleased, cods.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:

In the first major paper of its kind, a new study in the February 17 Nature has found that heavy precipitation is at least partly due to the growing concentration of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

I'm glad you posted that reference. It's an important new paper.  Of course it has been suspected for a while, but now it's conclusive.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen??

No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument..


THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy? not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all. that great well known scientist!

So because you dont like AL Gore you refute the opinion of the majority of the science world,. WOW , just WOW. ::) ::) ::)

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? Actually, not a day over 2 billion! Yes, unless you can tell me of another time "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet?

xxxxxxxxxxxx

you know when you put it like that.. 7 billion of us all breathing in and out, probably at the same time...most doing other nasty things as welllllllll...

did Al Gore bring that up before he quitely picked up his cheque and moved on????????

if cows can do more harm.. then the greens are right it is us humans..


bags they get rid of the greens first... they after all are very worried about the future.. so its only right

The meteor that wiped out the jurassic age?

Caused by man made global warming you know.

Kid you not. Just ask Al Gore.

No wonder Gillard hates Julian Assange, he was who leaked the truth about climate change.

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5186415/Climategate


Here, download and read the leading CRU scientist emails who were caught falsifying research data between themselves, this and cracking jokes about their having to cook the books between colleagues.

Note:  This was once our world authority and UN advisor's...concerning all things climate change.
Well, before the scientists disappeared off the face of the earth this and the climatic research unit closed.

But don't take my word for it....lol

::)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:13pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy? not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all. that great well known scientist! I think Noah would be pleased, cods. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

he would skip he would?...did you find out how X.Island is only the tip of a vulcano..skip??... its in the middle of the ocean so it must have been some vulcano.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D

Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it?

That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:14pm: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:13pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy? not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all. that great well known scientist! I think Noah would be pleased, cods. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D he would skip he would?...did you find out how X.Island is only the tip of a vulcano..skip??... its in the middle of the ocean so it must have been some vulcano.

Sorry, I was too busy helping Noah put the animals onto the ark.  

;D ;D ;D ;D

Crazy mellie ;)  You poor sod.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:14pm: cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:13pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy? not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all. that great well known scientist! I think Noah would be pleased, cods. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D he would skip he would?...did you find out how X.Island is only the tip of a vulcano..skip??... its in the middle of the ocean so it must have been some vulcano.

It must be time for your medication deary, you are addressing me for something I did not write. ::) ::) ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D

gizmo I thought the whole point of this topic was for the true believers.. [suckers] to prove that it hasnt happened before..the icecaps have never melted.. why should those who disagree have to prove anything... if they want to believe who bloody cares.

why they care what I think is a mystery to me... I just dont like taxing something that most who claim they know more than the rest of us have been found to be liar.. but then some prefer lies.. it gets them votes.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? Actually, not a day over 2 billion! Yes, unless you can tell me of another time "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet? xxxxxxxxxxxx you know when you put it like that.. 7 billion of us all breathing in and out, probably at the same time...most doing other nasty things as welllllllll... did Al Gore bring that up before he quitely picked up his cheque and moved on???????? if cows can do more harm.. then the greens are right it is us humans.. bags they get rid of the greens first... they after all are very worried about the future.. so its only right

I see you have quietly, not addressed the actual issue and tried to side-step into something completely irrlevant!

I used to know someone else who made an artform of that, although she didn't do it all that well, perhaps you live with her - slr20mcclaren?  

So, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"?

I hear Noah is sounding the bell! Looks like it's time.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it? That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy.

LOL no not really alevine, I ask perceptions fro 'proof' that the current conditions have never happened before, and YOU asked me for proof that it's 'never happened before'......which IS the same question.....so you stuffed up..

What you SHOULD have asked is "YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it did happen?? (before)"

To which I would have answered YES.....
Typos suck, don't they??


The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive..

Only deniers and morons would either misinterpret, or not understand the straightforward point you made, preceptions_now.

The greatest shame of the whole Global warming issue is that the extreme right of politics accepted the lobbying of the energy companies who engineered the denialist campaign, and now that campaign has taken on a life of its own, and otherwise reasonable people can just ignore and reject totally respected and credible scientific opinion, not because of any fault in the science, but based upon their political prejudices alone.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it? That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy. LOL no not really alevine, I ask perceptions fro 'proof' that the current conditions have never happened before, and YOU asked me for proof that it's 'never happened before'......which IS the same question.....so you stuffed up.. What you SHOULD have asked is "YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it did happen?? (before)" To which I would have answered YES..... Typos suck, don't they?? The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive..

So, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"?

mozzaok wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Only deniers and morons would either misinterpret, or not understand the straightforward point you made, preceptions_now. The greatest shame of the whole Global warming issue is that the extreme right of politics accepted the lobbying of the energy companies who engineered the denialist campaign, and now that campaign has taken on a life of its own, and otherwise reasonable people can just ignore and reject totally respected and credible scientific opinion, not because of any fault in the science, but based upon their political prejudices alone.

Good to see you here ,Mozz. :)

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:46pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it? That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy. LOL no not really alevine, I ask perceptions fro 'proof' that the current conditions have never happened before, and YOU asked me for proof that it's 'never happened before'......which IS the same question.....so you stuffed up.. What you SHOULD have asked is "YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it did happen?? (before)" To which I would have answered YES..... Typos suck, don't they?? The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive.. So, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"?

Personally, no...but over 4.3 billion years, who can say??...Do you know how many people 'may' have existed in the Atlantean civilisation????, or in any other 'previous' civilisation???...Written history (that WE know of) goes back about 10,000 or 15,000 years...Yes?

Can you tell, with any level of certainty, how many people 'may' have existed on Earth, 2 billion years ago???......I know I can't....I'm reduced to using the fossil record and other archaeological evidence...which may not cover all of human existence...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: [b]This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it? That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy. LOL no not really alevine, I ask perceptions fro 'proof' that the current conditions have never happened before, and YOU asked me for proof that it's 'never happened before'......which IS the same question.....so you stuffed up.. What you SHOULD have asked is "YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it did happen?? (before)" To which I would have answered YES..... Typos suck, don't they?? The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive..

I can't believe I have to explain this, but hey, this is wha thappens when you deal with right wingers I guess.

You asked for prove that these conditions have never occured before.

I asked you the same question back, because, like perceptions, you are not 5 billion years of age. So, how do you know they didn't happen?

Do I need to write it out in baby language for you?  Seriously?

Quote:

I can't believe I have to explain this, but hey, this is wha thappens when you deal with right wingers I guess. You asked for prove that these conditions have never occured before. I asked you the same question back, because, like perceptions, you are not 5 billion years of age. So, how do you know they didn't happen? Do I need to write it out in baby language for you?  Seriously?

Oh gods, are you actually THAT stupid???

You asked for proof that the 'current climate conditions' didn't happen before...AND I told you that there IS no proof...

IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept...

To talk in 'baby language'...if the same things HAVE happened , in the past, long before humans developed 'industrial technology'...then Climate Change doesn't have anything to do with Technology....

Can you 'FINALLY' work it out???? The fact that the very same changes to climate have happened LONG before humans started producing Co2 means that Co2 has NOTHING to do with Climate Change...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:46pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:49pm: Quote: This has never happened before! And you're 5 billion years old, and KNOW this for certain??? I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.   YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen?? No I don't know for certain that the Ice caps haven't melted many times in the past, or that some (or numerous) land areas haven't been flooded due to perfectly natural fluctuations in temperature and climate conditions....which is in fact the whole point to the argument.. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AGREEING WITH ME..... ;D ;D ;D Exactly right. So, would you rather just deny deny deny or listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise? No one, at least not me, is suggesting we go all out and call the end of the world, buit surely if YOU DON"T KNOW and SCIENCE is suggesting something is incredibly plausible we should look at it? That and the fact that in the end it just make perfect sense for the future sustainability of not only this planet but the economy. LOL no not really alevine, I ask perceptions fro 'proof' that the current conditions have never happened before, and YOU asked me for proof that it's 'never happened before'......which IS the same question.....so you stuffed up.. What you SHOULD have asked is "YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it did happen?? (before)" To which I would have answered YES..... Typos suck, don't they?? The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive.. So, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"? Personally, no...but over 4.3 billion years, who can say??...Do you know how many people 'may' have existed in the Atlantean civilisation????, or in any other 'previous' civilisation???...Written history (that WE know of) goes back about 10,000 or 15,000 years...Yes? Can you tell, with any level of certainty, how many people 'may' have existed on Earth, 2 billion years ago???......I know I can't....I'm reduced to using the fossil record and other archaeological evidence...which may not cover all of human existence...

Let's try to stay with what the best science of the day can tell!

Wandering off, into a vitual realm of what if's & maybe's, only serves those who look for confusion!

The facts are that we (humans) haven't been around that long and there were only a few of us at the end of the last warming cycle, which is the one & only that we have experienced and we all but disappeared during the following Ice Age, again the only one we have experienced.

It is interesting, that you defer to a science, in order to disprove a science?

As I said, this has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!  

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

Quote: I can't believe I have to explain this, but hey, this is wha thappens when you deal with right wingers I guess. You asked for prove that these conditions have never occured before. I asked you the same question back, because, like perceptions, you are not 5 billion years of age. So, how do you know they didn't happen? Do I need to write it out in baby language for you?  Seriously? Oh gods, are you actually THAT stupid??? You asked for proof that the 'current climate conditions' didn't happen before...AND I told you that there IS no proof... IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... To talk in 'baby language'...if the same things HAVE happened , in the past, long before humans developed 'industrial technology'...then Climate Change doesn't have anything to do with Technology.... Can you 'FINALLY' work it out???? The fact that the very same changes to climate have happened LONG before humans started producing Co2 means that Co2 has NOTHING to do with Climate Change...

gizmo,
Can I ask another question?

Yes! Thank you!

Are the causes of current GFC different to previous GFC's?

Let me tell you, the answer is yes!

You know what that tells me?

It is possible to arrive at a similar outcome, when the underlying causes are not completely the same!

Would you agree?

, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"?  
Back to top    




I could be wrong but I am assuming you are saying because there are 7 billion humans on the globe.. thats why the weather is warming up??..

so in that case I think I answered you question and said yes you greens are dead right.. so when do you plan to jump off.. and let all those naysayers get on with their lives..

I mean sweating bodyheat. deadskin flakes.. dandruff farts. breathing all add to our carbon emmissions.. we wont go near the sewage ugh thingy... so lets see the less humans the better.. good of you guys to put your hands up very comendable..


theres me thinking its the nasty machines and electricity and coal we would die for,

that was the reason and its all about body odor now... got it.

why didnt woody explain that in the first place.. 7 bil never had that many people on the planet before

how many in the greens party can we count on to jump and make the place safer????????

Will somebody at least try to explain to Cods, that the problem isn't just that there are unprecedented numbers of humans on the planet but that we've become obscenely materialistic, destructive and short-sighted buggers - who worship the Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money of the Growth Fairy and his evil twin the Good Greedy Witch of the West...

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"?   Back to top     I could be wrong but I am assuming you are saying because there are 7 billion humans on the globe.. thats why the weather is warming up??.. so in that case I think I answered you question and said yes you greens are dead right.. so when do you plan to jump off.. and let all those naysayers get on with their lives.. I mean sweating bodyheat. deadskin flakes.. dandruff farts. breathing all add to our carbon emmissions.. we wont go near the sewage ugh thingy... so lets see the less humans the better.. good of you guys to put your hands up very comendable.. theres me thinking its the nasty machines and electricity and coal we would die for, that was the reason and its all about body odor now... got it. why didnt woody explain that in the first place.. 7 bil never had that many people on the planet before how many in the greens party can we count on to jump and make the place safer????????

So, you DO live with slr20mcclaren and perhaps Mellie?

Yer, them and the Pixies, no doubt...

There is still a window of opportunity to coax the hard right out of their denial. The return from their share portfolio.



Energy Investor Corporate Resolutions Increase on Climate Change

Climate change is bad for business—2011 marks a 50 percent hike in corporate energy investor climate change resolutions

Climate change doesn’t just have an effect on the environment; it can affect your portfolio as well. In fact, a report just released by Mercer consulting group claims that climate change could increase portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next 20 years—and this applies to nearly all businesses directly and indirectly tied to the energy sector.

More @
http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/other-energy/energy-investor-corporate-resolutions-increase-climate-change


It isn't hard to realise we can not debate logically with the denialists, they refuse to believe science because this is their only weapon ; ignorance.

Yet if we educate them about the cost and risk via their portfolios and superannuation fund payouts, maybe we might get a spark in their grey matter. They could then realise calculated action is better than just ignoring and letting money vanish out of their pockets.

---

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

Quote: I can't believe I have to explain this, but hey, this is wha thappens when you deal with right wingers I guess. You asked for prove that these conditions have never occured before. I asked you the same question back, because, like perceptions, you are not 5 billion years of age. So, how do you know they didn't happen? Do I need to write it out in baby language for you?  Seriously? Oh gods, are you actually THAT stupid??? You asked for proof that the 'current climate conditions' didn't happen before...AND I told you that there IS no proof... IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... To talk in 'baby language'...if the same things HAVE happened , in the past, long before humans developed 'industrial technology'...then Climate Change doesn't have anything to do with Technology.... Can you 'FINALLY' work it out???? The fact that the very same changes to climate have happened LONG before humans started producing Co2 means that Co2 has NOTHING to do with Climate Change...

I'm going to put this into point for for you, so you can hopefully get the picture and realise what the debate is bout:

* No one is arguing anymore that climate change is not real, yet the argument is whether humans have accelerated climate change because of carbon emissions.  Catch up on the debate, Human-Caused climate change is the actual thing even Abbott is debating, not JUST climate change in general.  We know climate change exist and always happens. You know how? the ice age.
* Considering humans weren't around 5 billion years ago, any evidence about that time becomes meaningless, unless you can show that climate change had the same effects in regards to its veracity and enhancement over time.  Good luck with that.  Like you said, you weren't around then, you can't prove that the weather patterns were as strong/the changes were as fast etc.etc.
* If you're hard right, aren't you meant to believe that the world was created only like 2000 years ago or so, and that dinosaur fossils were only a trick by god to reveal true believers?
* The argument is also whether we put action into place to reduce human-caused climate change, to hopefully reduce the veracity of climate change. No one denies that the climate will change. It's whether we can reduce the effects of it by reducing our emissions that theoretically accelerate it.

Are you also going to suggest CO2 is a harmless gas like mavisthebevishead?  Someone should inform the science community because there's not much point in them continuing research if the hard right nutters have found the answer!

I ask you again, do you have evidence that climate change was the SAME veracity and had the same acceleration over time 5 billion years ago? No? Then shut up and do some research about what the debate has always been about.

Not to mention that if we want to revolutionize our economy we must put into action policies that will begin to transform the way we do things. I know the hard right things progression is the most horrible thing in the world, but you can't seat here and constantly go "over time enhanced technology will become available."  Technology advancement depends on demand and expectation. there is a reason we don't have a self-driving car but have increased the speed of our computers x1000 since their introduction. Work out why.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... .

Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example.

Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse.

Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold."

In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks.

Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::)

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:43am:

I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year..

of course it's mother nature which is reacting to what we are sticking into the atmosphere !!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive..

No one gives a sh.t if you don't accept the evidence as being conclusive.

haven't you studied probability theory and heard of risk mitigation ??

you don't wait around until you get 100% proof of something that could be devastating to the human race before you start taking action just in case the theory is correct.

muso wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:05pm: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... . Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example. Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse. Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold." In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks. Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::)

Yes, that's what's needed, Proof?

And, here it is, Proof that the PARROT IS DEAD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

perceptions now with some cutting edge totally not-overdone humour

muso wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:05pm: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... . Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example. Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse. Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold." In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks. Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::)

Quite the opposite actually, muso, my argument is more along the lines of 'at first glance, you can't tell whether Colonel Mustard's death is homicide or suicide'....

must have standard of proof THIS HIGH to ride the rollercoaster

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:36am:

muso wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 8:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:05pm: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... . Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example. Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse. Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold." In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks. Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::) Quite the opposite actually, muso, my argument is more along the lines of 'at first glance, you can't tell whether Colonel Mustard's death is homicide or suicide'....

You can certainly tell that he didn't die of natural causes though. Your logic is flawed in the original post.  That's all I'm saying.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:01am:

perceptions now with some cutting edge totally not-overdone humour

I always thought that Al Gore belonged on the Monty Python team.

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:43am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 7:36am: muso wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 8:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:05pm: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... . Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example. Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse. Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold." In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks. Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::) Quite the opposite actually, muso, my argument is more along the lines of 'at first glance, you can't tell whether Colonel Mustard's death is homicide or suicide'.... You can certainly tell that he didn't die of natural causes though. Your logic is flawed in the original post.  That's all I'm saying.

Flawed how?? Is there one single part of current climate change that hasn't happened before??? No there's not....

So if the same actions have happened due to natural causes in the past, then there isn't any way say it's man caused THIS time...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

muso wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 7:43am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 7:36am: muso wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 8:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:05pm: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... . Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example. Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse. Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold." In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks. Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  ::) Quite the opposite actually, muso, my argument is more along the lines of 'at first glance, you can't tell whether Colonel Mustard's death is homicide or suicide'.... You can certainly tell that he didn't die of natural causes though. Your logic is flawed in the original post.  That's all I'm saying. Flawed how?? Is there one single part of current climate change that hasn't happened before??? No there's not.... So if the same actions have happened due to natural causes in the past, then there isn't any way say it's man caused THIS time...

 

Furthermore, it`s far from scientifically proven that Carbon is the culprit. As with all religious belief system, a great amount of blind faith is required.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:25pm:

cods wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 5:43am: I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made.. take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore.. wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?... have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year.. of course it's mother nature which is reacting to what we are sticking into the atmosphere !!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


gee wizz what did she react to to cause the ice age?.. or the dinosaure age or the disappearing dinosaure age...or the Egyptians who disappeared for 200 years and then returned.

I know she didnt have a thing to do with it..so what did??..

you have the science dont you?

oh not us dreary humans again and their motor cars.you will find a way to blame them rusty I know you will but its because you hate humans

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:32pm: The problem with the idea of "listen to some science that is suggesting otherwise?" is that the science is doing JUST that.......suggesting..It's not, and cannot BE absolutely set in stone..Simply because there was no one there to observe it..there can't be any 'absolute, 100% proof'...simply because it's a guess....much like the idea of Atlantis, and alien visitations to the Incans and Lake Titicaca or the Nazca desert carvings.....They're 'suggestive', but NOT conclusive.. No one gives a sh.t if you don't accept the evidence as being conclusive. haven't you studied probability theory and heard of risk mitigation ?? you don't wait around until you get 100% proof of something that could be devastating to the human race before you start taking action just in case the theory is correct.

you probably havent read where scientists come back after 10 or 20 years and tell us they got it all wrong...

I am forgetting of course you are a scientists arent you??.. so you would believe everything one of the boys tells you.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

Flawed how?? Is there one single part of current climate change that hasn't happened before??? No there's not.... So if the same actions have happened due to natural causes in the past, then there isn't any way say it's man caused THIS time...

The flaw in your logic gizmo is that you are completely ignoring the proven human impact on the atmosphere.
- humans burn fossil fuels (coal and oil) releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a fact.
- the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising as measured by instruments in Hawaii, Tasmania and other sites. This is a fact.
- if you change the concentration of gasses in the atmosphere you will change the way it absorbs heat. This is also a fact.

This is the "knife in the chest" (to use muso's analogy). You can claim that the current warming of the planet is "natural causes" but all the evidence points towards it being artificially warmed by human activities.

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm

Now, has this ever happened so fast before?

If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause
... correct?



440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

---

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm Now, has this ever happened so fast before? If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause ... correct? 440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

Very good Greens, now what was the 'recorded' rate of increase at the beginning of the Sangamon interglacial, about 125,000 years ago???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

____ wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:53am: 50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm Now, has this ever happened so fast before? If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause ... correct? 440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette. Very good Greens, now what was the 'recorded' rate of increase at the beginning of the Sangamon interglacial, about 125,000 years ago???

Why do you require that considering if it doesn't work with your political view, that climate change is crap, you will deny the science.


We are on a path to 440 parts and higher. When will the denialist decide to pull their heads in ... when they are starving to death, within a short period of time?

Current Humans behaviour increases carbon pollution and the human population is exploding. Doesn't take a scientist to understand the consequences of this.

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:53am: 50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm Now, has this ever happened so fast before? If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause ... correct? 440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette. Very good Greens, now what was the 'recorded' rate of increase at the beginning of the Sangamon interglacial, about 125,000 years ago??? Why do you require that considering if it doesn't work with your political view, that climate change is crap, you will deny the science. We are on a path to 440 parts and higher. When will the denialist decide to pull their heads in ... when they are starving to death, within a short period of time? Current Humans behaviour increases carbon pollution and the human population is exploding. Doesn't take a scientist to understand the consequences of this.

Again, it depends on definition, doesn't it??

So do you mean Climate Change, or MAN-MADE Climate Change???
Because I believe in the former, but not the latter...oh and my views on the subject are NOT 'political'.


And I want to know, in answer to YOUR question..:

"Now, has this ever happened so fast before?
If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause
... correct?"....
Of course it also follows that if it HAS happened as fast( or faster) before, then human population and behaviour can't be the cause
... correct? ....

You mean massive asteroids smacking into the planet disprove human caused climate change?


Loooooong bow you are pulling there.


meanwhile back to the graph, 330 ---> 380 ppm in 50 years is enough proof that whatever the cause, it is time for calculated action.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have upset this balance in the natural environment. Reducing the carbon greenhouse gas is a logical step alongside other actions like reducing human population growth.

The time for polluters and their hard right political allies to stop this greedy short term obstruction and think of the children.

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:05pm:

You mean massive asteroids smacking into the planet disprove human caused climate change? Loooooong bow you are pulling there. meanwhile back to the graph, 330 ---> 380 ppm in 50 years is enough proof that whatever the cause, it is time for calculated action. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have upset this balance in the natural environment. Reducing the carbon greenhouse gas is a logical step alongside other actions like reducing human population growth. The time for polluters and their hard right political allies to stop this greedy short term obstruction and think of the children.

What asteroids???...I never mentioned asteroids..

How about just answering the question??

Was the rate of Co2 increase during the Sangamon interglacial, about 125,000 years ago, higher or lower than the 'current' rate of increase (1ppm per year)????

It's a straight YES or NO answer...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 1:05pm: You mean massive asteroids smacking into the planet disprove human caused climate change? Loooooong bow you are pulling there. meanwhile back to the graph, 330 ---> 380 ppm in 50 years is enough proof that whatever the cause, it is time for calculated action. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have upset this balance in the natural environment. Reducing the carbon greenhouse gas is a logical step alongside other actions like reducing human population growth. The time for polluters and their hard right political allies to stop this greedy short term obstruction and think of the children. What asteroids???...I never mentioned asteroids.. How about just answering the question?? Was the rate of Co2 increase during the Sangamon interglacial, about 125,000 years ago, higher or lower than the 'current' rate of increase (1ppm per year)???? It's a straight YES or NO answer...

I'm looking forward to your answer woody.

Gizmo, where is this question coming from? Where did YOU read about this Sangamon interglacial matter?

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Gizmo, where is this question coming from? Where did YOU read about this Sangamon interglacial matter?

Here and there on the net...

The Sangamon interglacial was the last 'warm period' before the last ice age (the last time the ice sheets covered the world)..we are currently in the Holocene Interglacial, which is a warm period after the last glaciation.....The Sangamon interglacial was the most recent previous time when similar conditions existed, since we are currently in an interglacial...Therefore, IF the rate of increase in Co2 (ppm/years) was markedly different 'then' to now...that would be a good indication that man IS affecting Climate Change...if it was close to the same rate (like +0.80 ppm/year), then man is NOT affecting the climate....

See, fairly simple, yes??

Oh the Eemian interglaical is the same thing as the Sangamon interglacial ..different names in different countries..

It appears to me that AGW worshipers rely largely on faith and convenient coincidence to justify their religion.  Greens, have you ever considered that the issue could be slightly more complex than a convenient graph and a couple of hockey sticks?

BTW, did you know that the big hair fashion caused Haley`s Comet to appear?

but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!!

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!!

As has the Holocene interglacial...what's your point??

Greens_win made a claim that the rate of Co2 increase is higher now, than it's ever been in the past...I want him to prove that claim..


I KNOW he won't...and I also suspect he won't even contribute to this thread anymore...because he never does..Once he's been challenged he leaves and doesn't return...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 1:47pm: but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!! As has the Holocene interglacial...what's your point?? Greens_win made a claim that the rate of Co2 increase is higher now, than it's ever been in the past...I want him to prove that claim.. I KNOW he won't...and I also suspect he won't even contribute to this thread anymore...because he never does..Once he's been challenged he leaves and doesn't return...

Well that's a stupid argument. But anything green argues is probably a bit stupid.

It certainly wasn't this rapid for the 15000 years of the sangamon.

The only way to answer your question would be to have the same sort of detailed records we have for the last 100 years. 50 year periods don't reflect themselves in the geologic record. Maybe ice cores, but talk abou a needle in a haystack.  

Did you notice that sea levels were 6m higher in the sangamon?

OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period?

Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS.

You sound like longweekend.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... Flawed how?? Is there one single part of current climate change that hasn't happened before??? No there's not.... So if the same actions have happened due to natural causes in the past, then there isn't any way say it's man caused THIS time...

Going back to the analogy it's the fact that the knife is in the chest and we know that if you are stabbed through the heart with a knife , your pulse was quite normal beforehand and no pulse after, then there is a 99%+ chance that it was the act of being stabbed through the heart that killed Colonel Mustard.

In the same way, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Greenhouse Effect (the CO2 molecule has the property of absorbing LW Infrared radiation etc). We know that the CO2 has been increasing as a result of activities such as cement manufacture and fossil fuel burning, and there is a 99% + chance that this is what is causing the increase in mean global temperatures.

Of course we know that colonels might have died from natural causes in the past, and we know that there have been perturbations of the climate in the past, but in both cases, the evidence is equally compelling.  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 1:47pm: but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!! As has the Holocene interglacial...what's your point?? Greens_win made a claim that the rate of Co2 increase is higher now, than it's ever been in the past...I want him to prove that claim.. I KNOW he won't...and I also suspect he won't even contribute to this thread anymore...because he never does..Once he's been challenged he leaves and doesn't return...

I've gone down that track in some detail previously on the Environment board.

There were probably occasions where temperature increase was just as rapid, but in each case we have causes, just as we have today, and the causes were different to today.  

What happened in the past under a totally different set of circumstances is a red herring.

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 8:08am: IF there isn't any proof that this hasn't happened before then AGW is NOT a viable concept... Flawed how?? Is there one single part of current climate change that hasn't happened before??? No there's not.... So if the same actions have happened due to natural causes in the past, then there isn't any way say it's man caused THIS time... Going back to the analogy it's the fact that the knife is in the chest and we know that if you are stabbed through the heart with a knife , your pulse was quite normal beforehand and no pulse after, then there is a 99%+ chance that it was the act of being stabbed through the heart that killed Colonel Mustard. In the same way, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Greenhouse Effect (the CO2 molecule has the property of absorbing LW Infrared radiation etc). We know that the CO2 has been increasing as a result of activities such as cement manufacture and fossil fuel burning, and there is a 99% + chance that this is what is causing the increase in mean global temperatures. Of course we know that colonels might have died from natural causes in the past, and we know that there have been perturbations of the climate in the past, but in both cases, the evidence is equally compelling.

Ok, lets go back to your Colonel Mustard anaolgy......but delete the knife from the equation...

So we have Colonel Mustard lying dead on the floor........was it natural causes or human action????


In other words....in the current climate change...WHERE is the 'knife'???

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period? Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS. You sound like longweekend.

If it's such a stupid argument, why do you suppose that Greens_win brought it up in the first place?????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 2:58pm: OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period? Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS. You sound like longweekend. If it's such a stupid argument, why do you suppose that Greens_win brought it up in the first place?????

That was your own quote. Take responsibility rather than deflect.

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 6:56pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 2:58pm: OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period? Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS. You sound like longweekend. If it's such a stupid argument, why do you suppose that Greens_win brought it up in the first place????? That was your own quote. Take responsibility rather than deflect.

Come on Greens, be honest?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 2:58pm: OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period? Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS. You sound like longweekend. If it's such a stupid argument, why do you suppose that Greens_win brought it up in the first place?????

You're the one that raised the sangamon interglacial, gizmo.

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 6:56pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 2:58pm: OK, you're talking about the BEGINNING of the sangamon. What time period? Such a stupid argument. You find some esoteric bit of data, and demand someone refute it. FFS. You sound like longweekend. If it's such a stupid argument, why do you suppose that Greens_win brought it up in the first place????? You're the one that raised the sangamon interglacial, gizmo.

Yes, true...but greens is the one made the original statement about whether or not the Co2 increase is faster now than ever before...

Look at page 6, reply #75....

And then I asked if the Co2 levels had, in fact, ever risen so fast before....
I used the Sangamon simply because asking how fast the Co2 levels have risen THIS time is sort of pointless, isn't it???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:50pm:

Ok, lets go back to your Colonel Mustard anaolgy......but delete the knife from the equation... So we have Colonel Mustard lying dead on the floor........was it natural causes or human action???? In other words....in the current climate change...WHERE is the 'knife'???

That wouldn't be a good analogy because copious volumes of scientific research tells us that the case is at least 99% certain.

You need to put the knife back in to make it a valid comparison.

As I already said, the "knife" is the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases to absorb LWIR and the fact that the increase in atmospheric GHG's can unequivocably be traced and quantified. Accountants are very good at keeping track of  sales and consumption of hydrocarbons and coal. It's not rocket science.  

All the dodging, lying and polemic choreography in the world can't get around those basic physical facts.  

Would anyone object of I transferred this thread to Environment? It's an environmental subject.

It won't worry me if you move it muso....

I'm done with it anyway, I realise I'll never get any answer other than "because" to my questions....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 7:40am:

It won't worry me if you move it muso.... I'm done with it anyway, I realise I'll never get any answer other than "because" to my questions....

Well tell me what you don't understand/ agree with  in the Climate Science thread if you like.  It's all pretty basic stuff. The question of anthropogenic global warming is settled. The paper mentioned on this thread is about the increased frequency of storm events.

We've moved on.  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 7:40am:

It won't worry me if you move it muso.... I'm done with it anyway, I realise I'll never get any answer other than "because" to my questions....

Gizmo, i thought better of you than this.

However, I will say, if the answers  you're seeking are like that sangamano interglacial question, I think you are expecting too much.

Please delete wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 7:40am: It won't worry me if you move it muso.... I'm done with it anyway, I realise I'll never get any answer other than "because" to my questions.... Gizmo, i thought better of you than this. However, I will say, if the answers  you're seeking are like that sangamano interglacial question, I think you are expecting too much.

Oh there are people who will provide an answer - in fact tell me what answer you want and I'm sure we can find somebody - not necessarily an authority on the subject of course.  ;)

There are very few other subjects that have so many armchair experts.

The next time you have a medical problem, I know a very good taxi driver who is an expert on almost every subject under the sun.

Please delete wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 7:40am: It won't worry me if you move it muso.... I'm done with it anyway, I realise I'll never get any answer other than "because" to my questions.... Gizmo, i thought better of you than this. However, I will say, if the answers  you're seeking are like that sangamano interglacial question, I think you are expecting too much.

Why are you surprised Ernie???

I've been trying for about 24 hours to get the answer to the question Greens asked......

And so far 2 other people have come into the converstation to run interference and cloud the issue....
So, it's pretty obvious that I'll never get an answer....

Ok, so what is the questions again?

And I'm not "running interference".

Please delete wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 7:58am:

Ok, so what is the questions again?

The one Greens asked......

Has the rate of Co2 increase ever been as fast before, as it has been in the last 50 years.....

I'm sure it has - perhaps when a supervolcano erupted, or some other cataclysmic event.

Why does what happened in the pre human past have any relevance? Such a rapid rise could be disastrous for US, NOW.

You ask the question like you have some idea of another time it happened - so what is your killer argument?

BTW, it is REALLY hard to find this damn thread now that it has been moved. What was the point of moving it again?

Please delete wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 8:11am:

I'm sure it has - perhaps when a supervolcano erupted, or some other cataclysmic event. Why does what happened in the pre human past have any relevance? Such a rapid rise could be disastrous for US, NOW. You ask the question like you have some idea of another time it happened - so what is your killer argument? BTW, it is REALLY hard to find this damn thread now that it has been moved. What was the point of moving it again?

Pretty simple really....If the average rate of change across the past (before human industry, and allowing for assorted cataclysms) is the same as the average rate in the last 50-100 years...How can it be assigned to human action???

If?

I ask again, if you have some point or evidence, why not lay it out?

If the concentration of Co2 increased 1ppm every year, then in a short period (geologically speaking, say 1000 years) the Co2 would be at 1380 ppm.

The scientists say that would be a different world to this.

So what are you getting at?

Please delete wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 1:31pm:

If? I ask again, if you have some point or evidence, why not lay it out? If the concentration of Co2 increased 1ppm every year, then in a short period (geologically speaking, say 1000 years) the Co2 would be at 1380 ppm. The scientists say that would be a different world to this. So what are you getting at?

LOL that's what's so funny....I was asking Greens for THAT info to start with....

And no it wouldn't.....because it's cyclic thing....Co2 is released and absorbed all the time...

OK, gizmo.

You don't agree, there's nothing I can say.

And I hope you are right.

Please delete wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 1:49pm:

OK, gizmo. You don't agree, there's nothing I can say. And I hope you are right.

Well scientists on both sides of the debate agree that Co2 is absorbed by oceans/plants etc during cool periods and released in warmer times......so the amount of atmospheric Co2 varies all the time...even within the year, according to seasons....

And? I still don't understand what you are getting at.

If all you are saying is that it is all natural, that it's just cyclic, that it's OK if the sea levels rise 6m BECAUSE it's all natural, well, OK then.

Please delete wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 2:39pm:

And? I still don't understand what you are getting at. If all you are saying is that it is all natural, that it's just cyclic, that it's OK if the sea levels rise 6m BECAUSE it's all natural, well, OK then.

And when is this sea level rise supposed to take place???

It seems to keep changing....

Well if it's all natural.....exactly how can we stop it???

And what I'm actually saying is that Co2 might not be the cause of any changes in the climate or temperatures.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 1:49pm: OK, gizmo. You don't agree, there's nothing I can say. And I hope you are right. Well scientists on both sides of the debate agree that Co2 is absorbed by oceans/plants etc during cool periods and released in warmer times......so the amount of atmospheric Co2 varies all the time...even within the year, according to seasons....

Getting back to basics. Yes, we can see the annual cycle superimposed on the upwards trend.  What point are you making? - and why do you think it peaks around May each year?

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_70552.png

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 1:17pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:11am: I'm sure it has - perhaps when a supervolcano erupted, or some other cataclysmic event. Why does what happened in the pre human past have any relevance? Such a rapid rise could be disastrous for US, NOW. You ask the question like you have some idea of another time it happened - so what is your killer argument? BTW, it is REALLY hard to find this damn thread now that it has been moved. What was the point of moving it again? Pretty simple really....If the average rate of change across the past (before human industry, and allowing for assorted cataclysms) is the same as the average rate in the last 50-100 years...How can it be assigned to human action???

Ok fair enough, we can get CO2 data for this period from Law Dome ice cores, and that's primary data, since we're just measuring CO2 in bubbles trapped in the ice.  So now that we know that it isn't, what can we conclude?

Here is the data displayed graphically:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif


There is corroborating evidence from Siple station and the Greenland Cores. If you want to go back even further, the Vostok ice cores go right back to the last 850,000 years.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.full


Quote:

Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years   1. Fortunat Joos * and   2. Renato Spahni †

Quote:

In summary, the rate of change in anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is unique in the context of the past. The 20th century rise in anthropogenic forcing occurs faster than changes in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4, and N2O during the past 20,000 years. Decadal-scale rates of change in CO2, CH4, and N2O and in their forcing are several times larger during the Industrial Era than the last 2,000 years. In addition, the multidecadal scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is also very high in the context of the known natural forcing variations of the past millennium. For recent years, the analysis by (7) shows that CO2 emission from fossil and industrial sources, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate forcing, have been accelerating over the past few years compared with the 1990s.

muso wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 3:16pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 2:29pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 1:49pm: OK, gizmo. You don't agree, there's nothing I can say. And I hope you are right. Well scientists on both sides of the debate agree that Co2 is absorbed by oceans/plants etc during cool periods and released in warmer times......so the amount of atmospheric Co2 varies all the time...even within the year, according to seasons.... Getting back to basics. Yes, we can see the annual cycle superimposed on the upwards trend.  What point are you making? - and why do you think it peaks around May each year? http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_70552.png

Well the last time I checked, Hawaii was in the Northern Hemisphere...so May would be middle to late Spring....

muso wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 3:41pm:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.full Quote: Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years   1. Fortunat Joos * and   2. Renato Spahni † [quote]In summary, the rate of change in anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is unique in the context of the past. The 20th century rise in anthropogenic forcing occurs faster than changes in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4, and N2O during the past 20,000 years. Decadal-scale rates of change in CO2, CH4, and N2O and in their forcing are several times larger during the Industrial Era than the last 2,000 years. In addition, the multidecadal scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is also very high in the context of the known natural forcing variations of the past millennium. For recent years, the analysis by (7) shows that CO2 emission from fossil and industrial sources, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate forcing, have been accelerating over the past few years compared with the 1990s.

[/quote]

That's nice......

Now they only have to prove that Co2 is anything more than a by-product of a warming climate....

muso wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 3:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 1:17pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:11am: I'm sure it has - perhaps when a supervolcano erupted, or some other cataclysmic event. Why does what happened in the pre human past have any relevance? Such a rapid rise could be disastrous for US, NOW. You ask the question like you have some idea of another time it happened - so what is your killer argument? BTW, it is REALLY hard to find this damn thread now that it has been moved. What was the point of moving it again? Pretty simple really....If the average rate of change across the past (before human industry, and allowing for assorted cataclysms) is the same as the average rate in the last 50-100 years...How can it be assigned to human action??? Ok fair enough, we can get CO2 data for this period from Law Dome ice cores, and that's primary data, since we're just measuring CO2 in bubbles trapped in the ice.  So now that we know that it isn't, what can we conclude? Here is the data displayed graphically: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif There is corroborating evidence from Siple station and the Greenland Cores. If you want to go back even further, the Vostok ice cores go right back to the last 850,000 years.

I notice that the graph starts at 1000 AD...what about starting it earlier ie: in the Middle Ages when it was hotter than it is now...or starting it 25,000 or even 100,000 years ago so we can see any cycle of changes? You aren't cherry picking are you Muso? Climate change is due to that big ball of gas in the sky.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 3:56pm:

muso wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 3:41pm: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.full Quote: Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years   1. Fortunat Joos * and   2. Renato Spahni † [quote]In summary, the rate of change in anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is unique in the context of the past. The 20th century rise in anthropogenic forcing occurs faster than changes in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4, and N2O during the past 20,000 years. Decadal-scale rates of change in CO2, CH4, and N2O and in their forcing are several times larger during the Industrial Era than the last 2,000 years. In addition, the multidecadal scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is also very high in the context of the known natural forcing variations of the past millennium. For recent years, the analysis by (7) shows that CO2 emission from fossil and industrial sources, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate forcing, have been accelerating over the past few years compared with the 1990s.

That's nice......

Now they only have to prove that Co2 is anything more than a by-product of a warming climate....[/quote]


I agree that there is a two way equilibrium between temperature and CO2. That's fundamental atmospheric physics. I'm glad that you appreciate that point at least,  but in order to produce more atmospheric CO2, you need to increase the temperature somehow. The only obvious source is the sun, but the data is "screaming" that if anything, solar irradiance has been slowly dropping.

Apart from that, we can use the carbon balance and a world of carbon accounting to show exactly how much carbon dioxide and other GHG's are being produced every year. I showed you the calculation in a previous post.

We know the mass of carbon entering the atmosphere, we know how much of that is partitioned into the oceans (roughly 1/3 of the total) and not only that but we can carry out isotope analysis of the carbon to determine its source. Carbon from biota has a totally different isotope signature to fossil carbon. Do you understand that?

Regarding the seasonal peaks, these occur at all monitoring stations around April/ May each year regardless of location North or South of the equator. If the landmass was equal on both hemispheres, then there would be no appreciable seasonal peak. However, there is more landmass in the Northern hemisphere. I can explain further if you like.

Beertruk wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 7:15pm:

I notice that the graph starts at 1000 AD...what about starting it earlier ie: in the Middle Ages when it was hotter than it is now...or starting it 25,000 or even 100,000 years ago so we can see any cycle of changes? You aren't cherry picking are you Muso? Climate change is due to that big ball of gas in the sky.

That dataset is from the Law Dome Cores. That's the full extent of data from that particular site. There is other data before that date. I was responding to Gizmo's point about the increase in CO2 being at the same rate before industrialisation.

We are talking about atmospheric CO2 levels. I'm not sure how your post relates to that.

Quote:

Regarding the seasonal peaks, these occur at all monitoring stations around April/ May each year regardless of location North or South of the equator. If the landmass was equal on both hemispheres, then there would be no appreciable seasonal peak. However, there is more landmass in the Northern hemisphere. I can explain further if you like

Actually according to Dr Keeling, who produced the Muana Loa graph, the increase is in Spring for each hemisphere...to qoute:

"Annual averages and amplitudes of the annual
cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration both decrease from high northern latitudes to high southern
latitudes. Peak annual CO2 concentrations occur in spring, around May in mid latitudes of the Northern
Hemisphere and September or October in mid latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere."

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:16pm:

Quote: Regarding the seasonal peaks, these occur at all monitoring stations around April/ May each year regardless of location North or South of the equator. If the landmass was equal on both hemispheres, then there would be no appreciable seasonal peak. However, there is more landmass in the Northern hemisphere. I can explain further if you like Actually according to Dr Keeling, who produced the Muana Loa graph, the increase is in Spring for each hemisphere...to qoute: "Annual averages and amplitudes of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration both decrease from high northern latitudes to high southern latitudes. Peak annual CO2 concentrations occur in spring, around May in mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and September or October in mid latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf

I should have explained that I was talking about mean global levels of CO2. There, the Northern hemisphere effect is predominant. Anyway, it's a well understood seasonal fluctuation. There are also minor diurnal fluctuations.

Let's get back to the main argument in which I made the point that  we can trace how much carbon is being emitted to the atmosphere and that we can show whether the carbon is of organic or fossil origin.

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 12:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 1:16pm: Quote: Regarding the seasonal peaks, these occur at all monitoring stations around April/ May each year regardless of location North or South of the equator. If the landmass was equal on both hemispheres, then there would be no appreciable seasonal peak. However, there is more landmass in the Northern hemisphere. I can explain further if you like Actually according to Dr Keeling, who produced the Muana Loa graph, the increase is in Spring for each hemisphere...to qoute: "Annual averages and amplitudes of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration both decrease from high northern latitudes to high southern latitudes. Peak annual CO2 concentrations occur in spring, around May in mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and September or October in mid latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf I should have explained that I was talking about mean global levels of CO2. There, the Northern hemisphere effect is predominant. Anyway, it's a well understood seasonal fluctuation. There are also minor diurnal fluctuations. Let's get back to the main argument in which I made the point that  we can trace how much carbon is being emitted to the atmosphere and that we can show whether the carbon is of organic or fossil origin.

Which is all well and good, and brings us back to MY point.....Which is, there's been no definitive proof that Co2 is the cause of the rising global temperatures..

From icecore evidence I've seen, there seems to be a significant lag between temperature change and  changes in Co2 concentration  of up to 700 years.......with Co2 trailing behind temperature.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Which is all well and good, and brings us back to MY point.....Which is, there's been no definitive proof that Co2 is the cause of the rising global temperatures.. From icecore evidence I've seen, there seems to be a significant lag between temperature change and  changes in Co2 concentration  of up to 700 years.......with Co2 trailing behind temperature.

That happens at least some of the time because there is an equilibrium between CO2 and temperature.  That is precisely what you would expect for such an equilibrium.

Besides, it stands to reason that temperature (or at least varying solar irradiance) was the main driving force pre industrialisation. After all, there was no major emissions of CO2 at that time.

Let's take an analogy - an air filled balloon in a controlled temperature chamber. There are two ways that you can affect the size of the balloon. (forgetting about adding more air for the moment)

1. Increase the temperature of the chamber
2. Increase the pressure of the chamber

Let's say that we do these steps in sequence. You've just increased the pressure of the balloon, when some guy comes up to you and says

- The balloon is larger - that means that the temperature has increased,  because in the past  when the temperature increased, the balloon got larger.

You then point out to him that you actually increased the pressure of the balloon and that it can be demonstrated that introducing more air into the balloon makes it grow bigger.

In that example, there is an equilibrium between temperature and pressure in the same way that  in the global climate, there is an equilibrium between temperature and CO2.  

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 1:13pm: Which is all well and good, and brings us back to MY point.....Which is, there's been no definitive proof that Co2 is the cause of the rising global temperatures.. From icecore evidence I've seen, there seems to be a significant lag between temperature change and  changes in Co2 concentration  of up to 700 years.......with Co2 trailing behind temperature. That happens at least some of the time because there is an equilibrium between CO2 and temperature.  That is precisely what you would expect for such an equilibrium. Besides, it stands to reason that temperature (or at least varying solar irradiance) was the main driving force pre industrialisation. After all, there was no major emissions of CO2 at that time. Let's take an analogy - an air filled balloon in a controlled temperature chamber. There are two ways that you can affect the size of the balloon. (forgetting about adding more air for the moment) 1. Increase the temperature of the chamber 2. Increase the pressure of the chamber Let's say that we do these steps in sequence. You've just increased the pressure of the balloon, when some guy comes up to you and says - The balloon is larger - that means that the temperature has increased,  because in the past  when the temperature increased, the balloon got larger. You then point out to him that you actually increased the pressure of the balloon and that it can be demonstrated that introducing more air into the balloon makes it grow bigger. In that example, there is an equilibrium between temperature and pressure in the same way that  in the global climate, there is an equilibrium between temperature and CO2.

So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope??

Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:22pm:

So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then...

Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not?

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not?

I know what you're trying to get at.

But that was an incredibly childish and inept example, and really doesn't fit the situation. The only way pressure increases temperature in a gas is if the gas cannot expand...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:39pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not? I know what you're trying to get at. But that was an incredibly childish and inept example, and really doesn't fit the situation. The only way pressure increases temperature in a gas is if the gas cannot expand...

Let's move on. Can you see that increasing CO2 will effectively decrease the LWIR escaping to space with the result of increased warming? If you accept that CO2 is a greehouse gas, then it's an implicit conclusion.

You obviously understand that increasing the temperature will result in more CO2 partitioning into the atmosphere.

Well, it's an equilibrium. If it wasn't an equilibrium, the globe would either be perpetually heating or perpetually cooling.

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:39pm: muso wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not? I know what you're trying to get at. But that was an incredibly childish and inept example, and really doesn't fit the situation. The only way pressure increases temperature in a gas is if the gas cannot expand... Let's move on. Can you see that increasing CO2 will effectively decrease the LWIR escaping to space with the result of increased warming? If you accept that CO2 is a greehouse gas, then it's an implicit conclusion. You obviously understand that increasing the temperature will result in more CO2 partitioning into the atmosphere. Well, it's an equilibrium. If it wasn't an equilibrium, the globe would either be perpetually heating or perpetually cooling.

No I don't see how increased Co2 would affect LWIR leaving the atmosphere......that's what the ozone layers do isn't it (or used to ..pre-panic days) Surely if Co2 blocks LWIR, then an increase would stop it entering, not leaving...

And what is 'wrong' with the greenhouse effect?? Without it, there would be NO life on earth at all.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 3:30pm:

No I don't see how increased Co2 would affect LWIR leaving the atmosphere......that's what the ozone layers do isn't it (or used to ..pre-panic days) Surely if Co2 blocks LWIR, then an increase would stop it entering, not leaving... And what is 'wrong' with the greenhouse effect?? Without it, there would be NO life on earth at all.

Ozone is a minor Greenhouse gas in the scheme of things, but the main concern with the ozone layer was the fact that it blocks certain wavelengths of UV radiation from the sun.

Remember when we went through this stuff before? I'll try to find the thread.


Quote:

Surely if Co2 blocks LWIR, then an increase would stop it entering, not leaving.

Remember, we're talking about LWIR radiation from the Earth.  What do you mean by entering? That frequency of IR comes from the Earth, not the sun.

Here's the post I was talking about:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405/168#177

You see the section in the graph in blue? That's the Long Wave Infrared radiation coming up from the Earth. The graphs under that show how each gas absorbs that LWIR radiation.

A greenhouse gas effectively scatters the radiation so that a smaller proportion makes it through to space.

So if you accept that greenhouse gases work in that way....

Let me know if you don't.

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 3:56pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 3:30pm: No I don't see how increased Co2 would affect LWIR leaving the atmosphere......that's what the ozone layers do isn't it (or used to ..pre-panic days) Surely if Co2 blocks LWIR, then an increase would stop it entering, not leaving... And what is 'wrong' with the greenhouse effect?? Without it, there would be NO life on earth at all. Ozone is a minor Greenhouse gas in the scheme of things, but the main concern with the ozone layer was the fact that it blocks certain wavelengths of UV radiation from the sun. Remember when we went through this stuff before? I'll try to find the thread. Quote: Surely if Co2 blocks LWIR, then an increase would stop it entering, not leaving. Remember, we're talking about LWIR radiation from the Earth.  What do you mean by entering? That frequency of IR comes from the Earth, not the sun.

But it still originates from the Sun (as slightly shorter frequency IR)...

The Earth cannot generate IR by itself..it can only reflect it.....

If Co2 and other greenhouse gases 'reflect' it from one side, they'll also 'reflect' it from the other....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 4:09pm:

But it still originates from the Sun (as slightly shorter frequency IR)... The Earth cannot generate IR by itself..it can only reflect it..... If Co2 and other greenhouse gases 'reflect' it from one side, they'll also 'reflect' it from the other....

I think I understand where you're going wrong. I'll try to explain it better - maybe on the weekend. I have a trip to the big smoke tomorrow so my time will be limited.

The highlighted portion is incorrect. You might have to go through the theory again. The key is the frequency/ wavelength at which the molecules absorb infrared. Again, try to understand the graph.

It's all in the LWIR from the Earth. The incoming radiation from the sun (mostly visible light) passes right through the CO2 molecules. At least the effect on incoming radiation is so miniscule that it can be ignored.

I'm keen to carry on this discussion when I can. Let's continue on a non judgmental basis. I think you'd prefer to get at the truth. (?)  

I read this next to the graph on the thread link you posted:

"If we had a pure (dry) nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere we'd have no  greenhouse effect to speak of and emitted long wave IR radiation would escape into space."


Are you also aware that without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's temperature would be -18 Celsius, and there'd probably be no life on Earth???

Yes of course. Carbon dioxide and the other Greenhouse gases have a net heating effect. Add more greenhouse gases, and all things being equal, that effect becomes greater.

No, more of a theromstat effect...

Look I'll make it easy...

Climate Change is a natural phenomenon and will occur at it's natural rhythm no matter what we do, or do not do, just as it has for Billions of years.

To believe that humans have, in our extremely short stay here, managed to influence climate is incredibly arrogant, not to mention, laughable...

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 2:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not?

Muso,
Can't you see, that Gizmo doesn't want to see!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:47pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not? Muso, Can't you see, that Gizmo doesn't want to see!

No, Gizmo 'wants' to follow the scientific method...Unlike the AGW religion...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

No, Gizmo 'wants' to follow the scientific method...Unlike the AGW religion...

Well that's a good start. Did you check the graph and see what I meant on the previous post?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:47pm: muso wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not? Muso, Can't you see, that Gizmo doesn't want to see! No, Gizmo 'wants' to follow the scientific method...Unlike the AGW religion...

I'll stand by my assessment, until I see some flicker of the acceptance of reality, which you steadfastly avoid!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 8:14pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 6:52pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:47pm: muso wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 2:22pm: So you're saying that the earth's surrounded by a semi-rigid, impervious envelope?? Gee, guess the whole space program WAS a fake then... Don't be obtuse. I'm explaining the concept of an equilibrium by giving you an analogy. Can you see what I'm getting at or not? Muso, Can't you see, that Gizmo doesn't want to see! No, Gizmo 'wants' to follow the scientific method...Unlike the AGW religion... I'll stand by my assessment, until I see some flicker of the acceptance of reality, which you steadfastly avoid!

ok PN, produce 'proof', other than 'the IPCC says so'....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 9:47pm:

ok PN, produce 'proof', other than 'the IPCC says so'....

Mate, consider to yourself for a moment (you don't have to say anything) that you might have been duped, caught hook line and sinker by the nonsense that's written on this subject.

Now I'm actually trying to explain to you the basics of the greenhouse effect and you're saying things to me that demonstrate that you don't really grasp the basics.

Just approach it from an open minded perspective. That's all I ask I'm trying to take you through the science, and I've seen enough common sense posts from you on other topics to convince me that I'm not wasting my time.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 7:09am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:47pm: ok PN, produce 'proof', other than 'the IPCC says so'.... Mate, consider to yourself for a moment (you don't have to say anything) that you might have been duped, caught hook line and sinker by the nonsense that's written on this subject. Now I'm actually trying to explain to you the basics of the greenhouse effect and you're saying things to me that demonstrate that you don't really grasp the basics. Just approach it from an open minded perspective. That's all I ask I'm trying to take you through the science, and I've seen enough common sense posts from you on other topics to convince me that I'm not wasting my time.

Have you considered that you might have been duped too???

If you post from an open minded perspective, I'll look at it with an open mind....but as long as you post from the point of view that human action is causing warming, and then try to justify it with talk about the greenhouse effect, I won't bother....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 7:51am:

muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 7:09am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:47pm: ok PN, produce 'proof', other than 'the IPCC says so'.... Mate, consider to yourself for a moment (you don't have to say anything) that you might have been duped, caught hook line and sinker by the nonsense that's written on this subject. Now I'm actually trying to explain to you the basics of the greenhouse effect and you're saying things to me that demonstrate that you don't really grasp the basics. Just approach it from an open minded perspective. That's all I ask I'm trying to take you through the science, and I've seen enough common sense posts from you on other topics to convince me that I'm not wasting my time. Have you considered that you might have been duped too??? If you post from an open minded perspective, I'll look at it with an open mind....but as long as you post from the point of view that human action is causing warming, and then try to justify it with talk about the greenhouse effect, I won't bother....

Mate, I understand the mechanism, and I'm trying to explain it to you.  Can we continue? Let's concentrate on the science instead of the religious catchphrases.

Don't come to any conclusions until you've thought it through.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 7:51am: muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 7:09am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:47pm: ok PN, produce 'proof', other than 'the IPCC says so'.... Mate, consider to yourself for a moment (you don't have to say anything) that you might have been duped, caught hook line and sinker by the nonsense that's written on this subject. Now I'm actually trying to explain to you the basics of the greenhouse effect and you're saying things to me that demonstrate that you don't really grasp the basics. Just approach it from an open minded perspective. That's all I ask I'm trying to take you through the science, and I've seen enough common sense posts from you on other topics to convince me that I'm not wasting my time. Have you considered that you might have been duped too??? If you post from an open minded perspective, I'll look at it with an open mind....but as long as you post from the point of view that human action is causing warming, and then try to justify it with talk about the greenhouse effect, I won't bother.... Mate, I understand the mechanism, and I'm trying to explain it to you.  Can we continue? Let's concentrate on the science instead of the religious catchphrases. Don't come to any conclusions until you've thought it through.

The problem is, you consider Co2 to be the cause of climate change.....

I however consider Co2 to be an effect of climate change, and the scientific evidence is sufficently ambiguous to support both beliefs...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

The problem is, you consider Co2 to be the cause of climate change..... I however consider Co2 to be an effect of climate change, and the scientific evidence is sufficently ambiguous to support both beliefs...

No. I consider there to be an equilibium between temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gases. When you add something to one side of the equation, the system changes.

You are simplifying what I say to the point of not making any sense.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 9:59am: The problem is, you consider Co2 to be the cause of climate change..... I however consider Co2 to be an effect of climate change, and the scientific evidence is sufficently ambiguous to support both beliefs... No. I consider there to be an equilibium between temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gases. When you add something to one side of the equation, the system changes. You are simplifying what I say to the point of not making any sense.

So you don't think that Co2 is causing climate warming???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 9:59am: The problem is, you consider Co2 to be the cause of climate change..... I however consider Co2 to be an effect of climate change, and the scientific evidence is sufficently ambiguous to support both beliefs... No. I consider there to be an equilibium between temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gases. When you add something to one side of the equation, the system changes. You are simplifying what I say to the point of not making any sense. So you don't think that Co2 is causing climate warming???

So you don't think that CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? Without CO2, you'd be frozen solid. Add more CO2 and it will get (on average) warmer, but it's not a simple cause and effect relationship.   You can't have it both ways, either it's a greenhouse gas or it isn't.

What you're saying amounts to saying that you can fill a glass with water only to a certain level, and that if you keep adding water beyond that, the level will remain constant.

Let me check if I understand you correctly?

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 11:14am: muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 9:59am: The problem is, you consider Co2 to be the cause of climate change..... I however consider Co2 to be an effect of climate change, and the scientific evidence is sufficently ambiguous to support both beliefs... No. I consider there to be an equilibium between temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gases. When you add something to one side of the equation, the system changes. You are simplifying what I say to the point of not making any sense. So you don't think that Co2 is causing climate warming??? So you don't think that CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? Without CO2, you'd be frozen solid. Add more CO2 and it will get (on average) warmer, but it's not a simple cause and effect relationship.   You can't have it both ways, either it's a greenhouse gas or it isn't. What you're saying amounts to saying that you can fill a glass with water only to a certain level, and that if you keep adding water beyond that, the level will remain constant. Let me check if I understand you correctly?

Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas, as is water vapour, methane and ozone...
But so what?? Human contribution of Co2 to the atmosphere is pretty negligible really.....

Ok, on the assumption that climate change is natural, it must have an upper limit to the 'warming' part of the cycle, yes?..
So if humans add to the greenhouse gases (by emitting Co2), is that a 'major' problem?...if we (hypothetically) add 0.002% to the GHG mix, this might increase the temperature by 0.002% while the temperatures are on the 'up swing' cycle...

However, when the natural warming cycle ends, and the cooling starts, that 0.002% means the cooling cycle might be slower and not reach as low a temperature as normal....

In truth, SO WHAT????.......Instead of the world temperatures peaking at 16 Celsius, they'll peak a 16.002 Celsius....not exactly a major difference is it???


Temperatures go up, and temperatures go down, and have for as long as the Earth has existed.....And there's really nothing we can do about it, except adapt ....

Someone in this thread (I think it was Ernie) responded to a comment of mine that CC was natural with a line like "So when the sea levels rise 6m that's ok cause it's natural".....

Well no, a 6m sea level rise might be a problem, given how close to the coast lines we tend to live.......but it's not going to be 'catastrophic' unless it happens in ridiculously short time ( a day, a week, a month, a year etc)...

In all truth, we have as much chance of stopping climate change as we do of stopping winter, or sunset....we might have to change our living styles a bit, to cope with it....but humans, as a species, have done that lots of times before...

Groan.  How long ago did you do a science subject, Gizmo? Percent of a Celsius temperature?   ::)

OK - back to being non judgmental - On the weekend, between doing some translations, I'll get back to the Greenhouse effect.

Understanding the greenhouse effect plus a little bit of carbon accounting will make it easier to understand.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Groan.  How long ago did you do a science subject, Gizmo? Percent of a Celsius temperature?   ::) OK - back to being non judgmental - On the weekend, between doing some translations, I'll get back to the Greenhouse effect. Understanding the greenhouse effect plus a little bit of carbon accounting will make it easier to understand.

It wasn't meant to be 'real'...it was an example....So substitute 0.05 for 0.002....Same thing..

I know the real amount is 60% of 7%....which, (being charitable) works out as about 5% of the total Co2 levels are human action....
So if warming 'caused by Co2' (which it isn't..) is 1 degree per century, then 95% of that 1 degree is natural....so 0.95 degrees isn't from human action....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 2:59pm: Groan.  How long ago did you do a science subject, Gizmo? Percent of a Celsius temperature?   ::) OK - back to being non judgmental - On the weekend, between doing some translations, I'll get back to the Greenhouse effect. Understanding the greenhouse effect plus a little bit of carbon accounting will make it easier to understand. It wasn't meant to be 'real'...it was an example....So substitute 0.05 for 0.002....Same thing.. I know the real amount is 60% of 7%....which, (being charitable) works out as about 5% of the total Co2 levels are human action.... So if warming 'caused by Co2' (which it isn't..) is 1 degree per century, then 95% of that 1 degree is natural....so 0.95 degrees isn't from human action....

I'll give you the actual figures, and back them up with data on the weekend.

If your figures are higher than 7% then they aren't the 'real' figures....

OK. In a previous post on this thread I gave you the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the link:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405/274#274

I'm numbering the points so that you can tell me where you disagree.

1. There are currently 3 × 10^15  (3 times 10 to the fifteen) kilograms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or about 3000 billion tonnes.  

This varies on a seasonal basis, but we can tell this from measurements carried out at various monitoring stations positioned throughout the globe. We can even out the seasonal variations for the sake of this exercise, because they have been pretty constant over the entire monitoring period. You can get the total mass by multiplying the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the total mass of the atmosphere.

2. Current annual emissions amount to over 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or around 1% of the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - every year. To convert tonnes of carbon dioxide to tonnes of carbon, we multiply by about 0.27, so that gives us  8.1 billion tonnes of carbon.

3. We can get total emissions from the various sources. It's easy to determine how much coal was burned each year, and it's easy to determine how much oil was burnt.

4. For coal for example, the carbon content is between 60% for the poorest grade lignite and about 92% for the highest grade.  Anthracite.  The world production of coal was around 5 billion tonnes in 2004. You can check that figure if you like, but let's use that figure for now. Let's say that equates to 70% carbon as a rule of thumb, that gives us 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon.

5. You can quickly see that 3.5 divided by 8.1 gives us roughly 40 percent of global carbon emissions from coal, and that's about right.

6.The graph shows the total carbon emissions by fuel type over time.

7. We know how much carbon is going into the atmosphere from different sources. We know how much the CO2 concentration has risen, so we can see right away that a significant proportion of that rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels. (actually it's way over 100% if you do your sums, but the remainder is being deposited in the ocean and in biomass to some extent)

Now I'm by no means infallible, so if anybody can spot an error in the above calculations, let me know.

OK so far?  

---

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:42am:

OK. In a previous post on this thread I gave you the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Here is the link: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405/274#274 I'm numbering the points so that you can tell me where you disagree. 1. There are currently 3 × 10^15  (3 times 10 to the fifteen) kilograms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or about 3000 billion tonnes.   This varies on a seasonal basis, but we can tell this from measurements carried out at various monitoring stations positioned throughout the globe. We can even out the seasonal variations for the sake of this exercise, because they have been pretty constant over the entire monitoring period. You can get the total mass by multiplying the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the total mass of the atmosphere. 2. Current annual emissions amount to over 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or around 1% of the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - every year. To convert tonnes of carbon dioxide to tonnes of carbon, we multiply by about 0.27, so that gives us  8.1 billion tonnes of carbon. 3. We can get total emissions from the various sources. It's easy to determine how much coal was burned each year, and it's easy to determine how much oil was burnt. 4. For coal for example, the carbon content is between 60% for the poorest grade lignite and about 92% for the highest grade.  Anthracite.  The world production of coal was around 5 billion tonnes in 2004. You can check that figure if you like, but let's use that figure for now. Let's say that equates to 70% carbon as a rule of thumb, that gives us 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon. 5. You can quickly see that 3.5 divided by 8.1 gives us roughly 40 percent of global carbon emissions from coal, and that's about right. 6.The graph shows the total carbon emissions by fuel type over time. 7. We know how much carbon is going into the atmosphere from different sources. We know how much the CO2 concentration has risen, so we can see right away that a significant proportion of that rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels. (actually it's way over 100% if you do your sums, but the remainder is being deposited in the ocean and in biomass to some extent) Now I'm by no means infallible, so if anybody can spot an error in the above calculations, let me know. OK so far?

Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc...
Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc... Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider.....

Gizmo -  I don't think you're absorbing those figures. Around 1% is currently being added to the atmosphere  every year. Obviously some of that is being absorbed in the ocean, but for a start that proportion is dwindling as time goes on. It used to be about 50:50 a few decades ago. Now it's about 60:40  atmosphere/ocean split. If it wasn't for the oceans, we would have added roughly 3.8 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 last year. With the oceans absorbing some of it, that figure is 2.39 ppm for 2010. Back in the 60's we were adding about 1ppm per year. If you look at the graph of emissions for the different fuels, you'll see that we were emitting roughly half then of what we do now.

Human activity has added around about 80ppm or roughly 25% of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory since 1950 and roughly 30% since the beginning of industrialisation.

If you still have any doubt about where that CO2 came from, we can turn to isotope analysis. Do I need to go there, or can we move on to Climate sensitivity?

As far as oceanic outgassing is concerned, yes it does occur, as well as absorption. The net effect is absorption (dissolution of CO2), and that flux amounts to roughly 12 billion tonnes per year (as CO2).  

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc... Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider..... Gizmo -  I don't think you're absorbing those figures. Around 1% is currently being added to the atmosphere  every year. Obviously some of that is being absorbed in the ocean, but for a start that proportion is dwindling as time goes on. It used to be about 50:50 a few decades ago. Now it's about 60:40  atmosphere/ocean split. If it wasn't for the oceans, we would have added roughly 3.8 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 last year. With the oceans absorbing some of it, that figure is 2.39 ppm for 2010. Back in the 60's we were adding about 1ppm per year. If you look at the graph of emissions for the different fuels, you'll see that we were emitting roughly half then of what we do now. Human activity has added around about 80ppm or roughly 25% of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory since 1950 and roughly 30% since the beginning of industrialisation. If you still have any doubt about where that CO2 came from, we can turn to isotope analysis. Do I need to go there, or can we move on to Climate sensitivity? As far as oceanic outgassing is concerned, yes it does occur, as well as absorption. The net effect is absorption (dissolution of CO2), and that flux amounts to roughly 12 billion tonnes per year (as CO2).

But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it???
At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle....

Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it??? At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle.... Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative???

Yes it is.  That's what I'm saying because that's what we're measuring. The CO2 in the atmosphere (and in the ocean) has had a net increase of about 30% from the beginning of industrialisation. It is cumulative simply because the extra CO2 emitted is shifting the equilibrium.  The natural system has a certain amount of buffering capacity of course, but that buffering capacity has been well and truly broken.

The natural cycle has been roughly in balance prior to industrialisation. Of course if you change any one factor, the position of the equilibrium shifts. If you look back at the records from prehistory (CO2 and temperature) you can see evidence of that. As the Earth's orbit and tilt changes, the net irradiation from the sun changed with that, and slowly the CO2 responded upwards and downwards. <- maybe I should explain that bit in more depth.

Remember I'm talking about net fluxes. ok?

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 2:06pm: But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it??? At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle.... Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative??? Yes it is.  That's what I'm saying because that's what we're measuring. The CO2 in the atmosphere (and in the ocean) has had a net increase from the beginning of industrialisation. It is cumulative simply because the extra CO2 emitted is shifting the equilibrium.  The natural system has a certain amount of buffering capacity of course, but that buffering capacity has been well and truly broken. The natural cycle has been roughly in balance prior to industrialisation. Of course if you change any one factor, the position of the equilibrium shifts. If you look back at the records from prehistory (CO2 and temperature) you can see evidence of that. As the Earth's orbit and tilt changes, the net irradiation from the sun changed with that, and slowly the CO2 responded upwards and downwards. <- maybe I should explain that bit in more depth. Remember I'm talking about net fluxes. ok?

Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature...

THAT is the basic problem..

I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW.....

From my point of view, the IPCC and the other 'climate scientists' all started from the same point....."Co2 is causing global warming...now how do we prove it??"......And that, more than any thing else worries me.....Because it's the same 'mantra' that the greenies have been using since the late 60's.......it's got nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics....

Any time scientists start from a 'result' then work backwards to find justifications for it...my 'spidey' sense starts tingling....

It's the same method used during the US slave days "negroes aren't human" and in Nazi Germany "Jews are evil".....

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:25pm:

You know what? There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world. And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age! You know what? It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible? So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome. This has never happened before! Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!   You know what? Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth? And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

If we are heading into an Ice Age that will dictate human oblivion, wouldn't we be better off as a race encouraging global warming rather than preventing it?

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

[quote author=perceptions_now link=1297970964/0#11 date=1298003123]You know what? There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world. And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age! You know what? It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible? So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome. This has never happened before! Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!   You know what? Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth? And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

And PN, if we are wrong???...What will the 'future generations' say....
"They looked at the data, and destroyed their industry and civilisation...and STILL did nothing to change the world..."

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm Now, has this ever happened so fast before? If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause ... correct? 440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

Can you briefly explain why agriculture will collapse at this level?

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

____ wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:53am: 50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm Now, has this ever happened so fast before? If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause ... correct? 440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette. Can you briefly explain why agriculture will collapse at this level?

Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 3:33pm: [quote author=perceptions_now link=1297970964/0#11 date=1298003123]You know what? There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world. And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age! You know what? It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible? So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome. This has never happened before! Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!   You know what? Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth? And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"! And PN, if we are wrong???...What will the 'future generations' say.... "They looked at the data, and destroyed their industry and civilisation...and STILL did nothing to change the world..."

I think you meant, if YOU are wrong, which you are!

Even if you are right, which you aren't, it will setback the Global GDP say 5, 10, 20%, so what, TPTB are in the process of setting back Global GDP by much more than that, anyway!

However, if you are wrong, which you are, then you will have destroyed industry and civilisation, because you just did nothing, to change the world!  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature... THAT is the basic problem.. I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW.....

Ignoring the irrational bit at the end - you accept that the CO2 has risen by 30% since industrialisation and you accept that the evidence shows that the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning is pretty well consistent with the growth in atmospheric and ocean CO2 over that period.

Now you are questioning the very mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even though you've said that without that CO2, the Earth would be around -18 degrees C on average.

If I've got that right, the only thing I need to do to convince you is to demonstrate that CO2 and other Greenhouse gases cause warming, and to show how we can demonstrate that.

I guess there is the question of the magnitude too.  

I'm not interested in what you say about the IPCC or Chicken Little or whatever. Let's stick to science here.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes....

I hope you're not implying that that's my position. I have always made it clear that the way ahead is through sustainable growth. I approve of capitalism, and I like the idea of being rich.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 3:12pm: Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature... THAT is the basic problem.. I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW..... Ignoring the irrational bit at the end - you accept that the CO2 has risen by 30% since industrialisation and you accept that the evidence shows that the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning is pretty well consistent with the growth in atmospheric and ocean CO2 over that period. Now you are questioning the very mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even though you've said that without that CO2, the Earth would be around -18 degrees C on average. If I've got that right, the only thing I need to do to convince you is to demonstrate that CO2 and other Greenhouse gases cause warming, and to show how we can demonstrate that. I guess there is the question of the magnitude too.   I'm not interested in what you say about the IPCC or Chicken Little or whatever. Let's stick to science here. gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes.... I hope you're not implying that that's my position. I have always made it clear that the way ahead is through sustainable growth. I approve of capitalism, and I like the idea of being rich.

Ok, go for it...convince me that Co2 or GHG's cause warming...

The 'evil industry' thing was an entirely different concept....you can ignore it...

ok. That will be my challenge for tomorrow.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 3:12pm: Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature... THAT is the basic problem.. I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW..... Ignoring the irrational bit at the end - you accept that the CO2 has risen by 30% since industrialisation and you accept that the evidence shows that the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning is pretty well consistent with the growth in atmospheric and ocean CO2 over that period. Now you are questioning the very mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even though you've said that without that CO2, the Earth would be around -18 degrees C on average. If I've got that right, the only thing I need to do to convince you is to demonstrate that CO2 and other Greenhouse gases cause warming, and to show how we can demonstrate that. I guess there is the question of the magnitude too.   I'm not interested in what you say about the IPCC or Chicken Little or whatever. Let's stick to science here. gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes.... I hope you're not implying that that's my position. I have always made it clear that the way ahead is through sustainable growth. I approve of capitalism, and I like the idea of being rich.

It is possible, we may differ here, Muso?

I know that I will differ with gizmo, qikvtec and some others, but you get that!

The phrase "sustainable growth", aside from various implications regarding the word sustainable, still has growth as the underlying theme!

I would suggest that at this point in the history of the human species, continued Economic growth is not only not likely, but it is likely to quickly become counter-productive, in terms of the quality of life, for most of the human species.

The last 100 years or so, of this edition of Capitalism, Economic Growth has become a absolute requirement, along with an ever increasing Debt based monetary system.

We, as a species, have now reached the zenith of that Economic Growth system, as we edge over the 7 Billion Population and perhaps head for 8 Billion?

However, I have serious doubts that we will make it to 8 Billion, due to -
1) The declining Global fertility rate.
2) The death of some 2 Billion Baby Boomers over the next 20-30 years or so.
3) The imminent decline of the Global Energy system, primarily that of Fossil Fuels & primarily Crude Oil, which enables Transport, Agriculture, a great deal of the Medical areas & many, many other areas.    

They are 2 of the three primary Economic Drivers & Enablers of the last 150-200 years and together with the added Economic restrictions of Climate Change, I believe there is very little chance of Economic Growth over the next 30-40 years, "sustainable or not"!

As I have previously said, Technology/Innovation may again ride to our rescue, but given the forces arrayed against us and our tendency not to believe that which is right in front of us, I have serious doubts.

I also believe that Capitalism is a better option than the alternatives, such as Communism & Facism, to name but a few.

However, Capitalism Mark1 has now outlived its time and the future must see a more directed Capitalism, as the old days are coming to an end, as an unrestricted Demand, meets a Supply full of limitations!

Quote:

2) The death of some 2 Billion Baby Boomers over the next 20-30 years or so

2 billion baby boomers?
I don't think so. The post war baby boom was restricted to relatively few countries. The bulk of this planet lives in regions where the average age is quite young - much less than what it is in countries like here which were affected by the baby boom.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:45pm:

Ok, go for it...convince me that Co2 or GHG's cause warming...

Let's start with an overview of the Earth's energy balance.

Most of the UV, visible and IR energy from the Sun passes right through the Earth's atmosphere and is absorbed by its surface (some is reflected and never absorbed). That energy heats the Earth surface to a average temperature of 18 degrees C. This temperature is sufficient for the Earth to emit energy only in the Long Wave IR part of the spectrum. It is this outgoing IR energy that is absorbed by the greenhouse gases. They warm the atmosphere and re-direct the IR energy, rather than allowing it to pass uninterrupted back to space.

Obviously there are many different factors that determine the average temperature of the Earth. These include the energy that the Earth receives from the sun, the amount of energy reflected back into space by clouds, ice and other bright substances, and conversely the amount of energy absorbed by darker surfaces, such as pine forests. That's known as the Albedo effect.

There are slow cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt that cause changes to the amount of energy being received from the sun. These effects are collectively referred to as the Milankovich cycles, after the Serbian engineer Milutin Milankovich who first described them. I could describe these effects in more detail, but Wikipedia beat me to it:

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


There are also factors that determine changes in local temperatures on the globe over time. These include changes in ocean (eg the SOI) and air circulation, and the melting of glaciers etc.

Now getting back to the Greenhouse effect, we have the energy radiated from the Earth at around 10 microns. Coincidentally (and lucky for us), carbon dioxide and water vapour happen to absorb Infrared at around that wavelength.  

I keep harping back to this diagram, but it's the key to understanding the Greenhouse effect.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/595px-Atmospheric_Transmission.jpg

You need to look at the graphs one by one. The first one (red area)  illustrates how energy is received from the sun and some is re-radiated back into space. 70 - 75% of the mostly visible and a bit of near infrared is absorbed by the Earth.

On the same graph, the blue area shows the 'black body" radiation from the Earth (remember we talked about the Stefan Boltzmann equation?).  Between 15 and 30% of that energy is transmitted into space at any given time.

Now the next graph down shows the total absorption and scattering. Notice that there is a huge chunk missing around the LWIR peak at 10 microns? (This can actually be measured directly by the way).  What do you think causes that absorption? The key is the graphs underneath that show the different components.

Have you ever seen the actual spectrum caused by different sources? For example the sodium spectrum is not continuous. (Remember the old sodium vapour street lamps ? They gave off a yellow light) It's a series of lines, but as the intensity of the source is increased, the lines broaden with width. A similar thing happens with an absorption spectrum. We'll talk about that more later.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf

Looks like climate change is indeed 'crap'!

HC wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf Looks like climate change is indeed 'crap'!

Instead of cutting and pasting from special interest lobbyists, why not try to follow the argument and refute anything that doesn't sound right? We are talking very basic science here.

Lavoisier Group

   * President: Peter Walsh, former Finance Minister
   * Vice President: Ian Webber, Director of WMC Resources
   * Secretary: Ray Evans, President of the HR Nicholls Society, ex-WMC [3]
   * Treasurer: Harold Clough AO, IPA board member and Director of Clough Group, a mining and resource service company.
   * Robert Foster
   * Bruce Kean, Chairman of Committee for Economic Development of Australia [4]
   * Peter Murray, coal industry consultant

Not a qualified scientist among them. Lavoisier would turn in his grave.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

Quote: 2) The death of some 2 Billion Baby Boomers over the next 20-30 years or so 2 billion baby boomers? I don't think so. The post war baby boom was restricted to relatively few countries. The bulk of this planet lives in regions where the average age is quite young - much less than what it is in countries like here which were affected by the baby boom.

My concept of Baby Boomers is somewhat different to the official one, but the 2 Billion should be about the mark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png/500px-U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer

For starters, the Baby Boom got under way a little earlier than the official version, it actually started in the mid 1930's, in the midst of the Great Depression, as can be seen in the above graph of the USA.
Nothing else to do, perhaps?

But then, between the mid forties and the mid fifties there was litterally a big hump in the Global Fertility rate.

In any event, the total Global Population went from 2 Billion around 1930 to 4 Billion around 1975, with a large amount of that increase coming between 1946-1956.

However, given the death rates of the time, that would have meant total births would have beed about 3 Billion, for a net increase of 2 Billion!

That all brings us back to the next 20-30 years, when I expect around 50-75% of those 3 Billion to leave us forever.

As we are talking about a lengthy period and many variables, perhaps the figures should be between 1.5 - 2 Billion, to allow a margin for error.

Btw, I think you will find the big hump was pretty wide spread, It had to be, to get these sort of figures. It certainly included most countries, including China, but not so much India.

To exacerbate things, the Fertility rate was up around 5 babies per woman Globally, it is now just above the natural replacement rate of 2.1, at around 2.5 and in many countries are already down under replacement, as low as 1.20-1.30, such as South Korea & Japan.  

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

However, on the other side, the outcome could be somewhat worse, in total deaths, particularly depending on the outcome of issues such as Peak Energy (oil) & the effects of Climate Change on Agriculture?

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

HC wrote on Feb 27th, 2011 at 8:54am: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf Looks like climate change is indeed 'crap'! Instead of cutting and pasting from special interest lobbyists, why not try to follow the argument and refute anything that doesn't sound right? We are talking very basic science here. Lavoisier Group    * President: Peter Walsh, former Finance Minister    * Vice President: Ian Webber, Director of WMC Resources    * Secretary: Ray Evans, President of the HR Nicholls Society, ex-WMC [3]    * Treasurer: Harold Clough AO, IPA board member and Director of Clough Group, a mining and resource service company.    * Robert Foster    * Bruce Kean, Chairman of Committee for Economic Development of Australia [4]    * Peter Murray, coal industry consultant Not a qualified scientist among them. Lavoisier would turn in his grave.

Seriously muso....that means what???...

The Board of Directors of most science companies/research groups don't include scientists either...
You know the old saying about scientific research...."It takes 10 people with their feet on the ground, to support 1 scientist with his head in the clouds"....