Seems there is a lot of missinformation out there regarding this subject and even about the movie.
Would suggest that before you comment on what is or is not in the movie that you go and see it. Then you can be more informed on what you are commenting on. You will see that some of the content that is stated not to be in the movie is actually in there.
Guesswork? How many scientists are actually working on climate change right now? And how much time have super computers spent performing climate change models? On my opinion, I don't think it's been a wasted effort, rellegated to a comment just like "that there are too many uncontrollable variables".
What we do have is massive amounts of data on the past and present, in the form of ice cores, biochemical, geochemistry and isotopic data. How well a computer model predicts aspects of climate change is very much dependent on good and accurrate data collected by excellent scientists.
Perhaps it is better just to look at one simple fact. Breakup of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica. Iceberg B-15, broke away earlier, and was 160 km in length before it later snapped in two (not shown). See the later parts of the breakup at:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...p3?img_id=6779
Many techniques which help us see into the past such as deep ice cores etc have shown movements of temperature in both directions-warmer and cooler.The Earth's temperature has increased in the past long before human influences and the reasons for this are many and varied, so it's not as simple as selecting the data which supports your doomsday theory and ignoring any data which doesn't.And besides which there is no universal rule which says the planet has to follow past trends is there?.It is also a fact that extinction of various species and the rise of others is a natural process which has been taking place for millions of yrs, so it could be said that people trying to save a species from extinction are actually working against nature!!.Regardless of how unpalatable these things are we have to face the fact that this is how nature works regardless of whether it is conducive to human life or not.
No doubt everything we do on the planet has some effect or other on our ecosystems and we should try to work more with the natural environment but to be really successful at that we would have to change human nature and that will never happen.Oh well unless we use technology to get off this planet and colonise others we are all doomed to extinction ourselves anyway albeit millions of yrs in the future,but it is scientific fact that the sun will run out of it's hydrogen fuel and eventually die!.
So my suggestion is that we all get as much fishing in now while we still can!!.Jace.
"Perhaps it is better just to look at one simple fact. Breakup of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica."
I agree lets look at fact - from http://www.atsr.rl.ac.uk/images/sample/ross/index.shtml
"It is unlikely that this particular event is connected to global warming as the advance of the icesheet is a continual process. Even with the calving of this monster, the edge of the ice-shelf has simply returned to where it was about 50 years ago."
The good and accurate data from the excellent scientists is part of the issue with so much conflicting info who do you believe.
We have to minimise our impact on the environment but in the end we (humans) are a part of the environment.
Who is to say that the up turn in temperatures is not a cyclic thing that is ongoing?
The beauty of science is that it possible to start out with a multitude of opinions and apply "scientific method" to your opinion or idea ( Sicentific method = "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"). if your idea, opinion or hypothesis is good and you provide results to prove it, which other people can replicate, then scientific opinion tends to agree with you. Any discussion about climate change shouldnt therefore be based on individual scientific papers but on the concensus of opinion of a large and wide ranging body of experts in a wide variety of fields. My reading of current opinion is that global warming is real, but the severity of the impacts are still open to debate. Personally I feel we should be erring on the side of caution until we know more about what may or may nort happen.
Some eminent panels that provide an overview of current knowledge can be found at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
There is a small minority of Ausfish posters who might also be interested in the following
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
Oz
Eat your words!
The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.
From Nature .....
Is US hurricane report being quashed?
NOAA scientists say political appointees blocked climate change message.
26 September 2006
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0609...l/443378a.html
Unfortunate that most people can't read this article in Nature. So here's another link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...cane.report.ap
The question is how can NOAA not take an official position on the issue?
Alarming surge of a potent greenhouse gas
MOUNT Zeppelin on the Arctic island of Ny-Alesund, part of Norway, is a watchtower of climate change. Instruments on its summit consistently detect the world's highest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Now it is recording an alarming surge in a far more powerful greenhouse gas, called HFC134a. Just one molecule has a warming effect more than a thousand times that of a molecule of CO2.
Since the ban on the chemically related CFCs, HFC134a has been manufactured in ever growing quantities for use in air conditioning systems in cars and buildings. The Norwegian Institute for Air Research says concentrations of the gas above Mount Zeppelin doubled between 2001 and 2004.
“This gas has a warming effect on the planet more than a thousand times that of CO2”
Manufacturers of air conditioners say their systems are designed to prevent leaks. "The rapid increase shows that whatever the industry claims, the gases are not being contained," says Chris Rose of the Multisectoral Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases, based in London.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 6
have a look at this article and read the transcrpit.http://www.aefweb.info/media784.html
My dictionary defines green as ‘unripe, immature, undeveloped'. Perfect description.
Most political parties are seen as interested in what the voters think, the Greens are seen as thinking the community should be interested in what they think.
And how many billion tons of carbon have we dug up from the ground?
Sorry mowerman I have trouble believing the article you posted. It's very short sighted.
The truth....what a load of rubbish.
The media and so called sientists delight in saying.
"Its the hottest day on record" or "they are the worst storms ever recorded"
The reliable records for Australia go back 120 to 150 years. WOW.
What happened 250 or 350 or 10050 years ago.
Did anyone see the news report on cores taken from dead coral on th GBR.
The drought we are in now is nothing compared to the one from 1620 to 1640. Wonder if they had "the hottest day on record"
A little known fact from the time of Copernicus.( if you dont know who he was,,,look it up).
The gravitational pull from the other bodies in the solar system ,mainly the sun and moon, causes the earths axis to wobble as it rotates.
The axis stays at 23 and bit degrees but this wobble causes it to rotate in a circle that takes approx 23,000 years. Which means that in about 11,500 years our summer will be in june, as it was 11,500 years ago.
And ,it has been shown that the last ice age took 18 months from bright and sunny to shit its cold. that was 20,000 years ago. Its coming round again.
Climate change? Yes probable
Can we change it? Not a hope in hell
Is man responsible? Yet to be convinced.
Now...Where are my snowshoes.
My dictionary defines green as ‘unripe, immature, undeveloped'. Perfect description.
Most political parties are seen as interested in what the voters think, the Greens are seen as thinking the community should be interested in what they think.
R134A is only a minor refrigerant and not used in a great deal of applications. As it is a zeotrope then it should break down quickly in the atmosphere...plus..it has no chlorine such as R12 had. But..scientists can come up with all sorts of amzing data when required. It is akin to the banning of R12...all the hype that is was blowing holes in the ozone layer..it has been banned for years and still little if any change in the hole in the ozone layer...lots of it is all corporation driven. Consider that R12 cost about $8 per kilo to buy...R22 which will be banned in 2015 costs about $14 per kilo and the new R410A(which is supposed to be environmentally friendly at this stage) is about $40 per kilo..makes you wonder who is making the big bucks on all this.Originally Posted by DICER
So with all this wonderful science, climateology/meteorology,
that is apparently so effective at predicting the destruction
of civilisation at our own hands.
Why can't they tell me if the weather will be good for
fishing next Friday?????
It seems that as they are blowing their own horns, I feel
a warm draft creeping up my AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
cheers Mick
I'm not worried about the cost of refrigerants - but geez it's great the can detect it in the artic !!!!
Hi Dicer,
maybe that is why it is so bloody cold there.
R...E...L...A...X
We are ALL going to die.
The planet will fix itself up after we are gone.
Till then I'm fishing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote