Author Topic: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading  (Read 106798 times)

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #135 on: January 08, 2014, 12:28:10 PM »
Better yet, call it what some geologists are beginning to call it, the Anthropocene, or human epoch, a departure from the Earth’s operating system—the first in almost 12,000 years.
Whatever you call it, get used to it.

http:businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/polar-vortex-created-by-arctic-warming-north-american-cooling

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #136 on: January 16, 2014, 10:39:51 PM »
If the temperature in Melbourne tomorrow hits 44 as predicted it will be the first time since records began that we will experience 4 days in a row above 41 degrees.

Where are the climate change sceptics now?

 :banghead
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....


Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #138 on: January 17, 2014, 08:34:08 AM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #139 on: January 17, 2014, 09:22:08 AM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other

Still a denier?
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40306
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #140 on: January 17, 2014, 10:13:03 AM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other

While I can understand the logic behind this statement and at times part of me agrees I still believe that climate change is real.

The thing I notice now with the weather compared to when I was a kid is the changes in just certain things rather than the changes in what are labelled the "extremes".

Best example for me anyway is the winds. I really don't remember ever having the strong (gale force) winds we have here in Melbourne these days compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago. Yes we had the odd day of gale force winds when a change was coming but these days we have them regularly. In some cases weeks on end.

As for the last 4 days of 40+, it's happened before in other places just not in Melbourne but having said that I remember having 4-5 days straight of 35-39. So multiple days of heat isn't really anything new IMO

"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #141 on: January 17, 2014, 10:18:49 AM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/2013-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-for-australia/5183040

Jan 3, 2014 - Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

keep in mind the Bureau of Meteorology are a pack of left wing lunatics go i would take this information with a grain of salt

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a more reputable website as opposed to http://www.bom.gov.au/
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 10:48:13 AM by Judge Roughneck »

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #142 on: January 17, 2014, 10:28:59 AM »
Where are the climate change sceptics now?

 :banghead

At church.

Offline 🏅Dooks

  • FOOTBALL EXPERT
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10370
  • 🏆✴✔👍⛉🌟
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2014, 10:41:06 AM »
97 out of 100 climate scientists believes climate change is real and caused my man.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

If 97 out of 100 doctors told you you had cancer, I dont think anybody would be prepared to gamble the odds. Theyd be seeking treatment.

But its easier to ignore issues outside of ones immediate self.
"Sliding doors moment.
If Damian Barrett had a brain
Then its made of sh#t" Dont Argue - 2/8/2018

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #144 on: January 17, 2014, 10:44:14 AM »
From Bryson A short history of nearlly everything

Quote
thomas Midgley Junior was an engineer by training and he developed an interest in the industrial applications of chemistry.  With an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny, Midgley invented chlorofluorocarbons CFC that is eating up our ozone layer in the stratosphere.
Midgley also applied tetraethyl lead that spread devastation to human health by killing millions from lead contamination and increasing the lead content in our bones and blood 650 times the normal dose.
Tetraethyl lead was used to significantly reduce the “juddering” condition known as engine knock.  GM, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint enterprise called Ethyl Gasoline Corporation with a view to making as much tetraethyl lead as the world was willing to buy this new gasoline and introduced this product in 1923.
Lead can be found in all manner of consumer products; food came in cans sealed with lead solder, water was stored in lead-lined tanks, and lead arsenate was sprayed onto fruit as a pesticide and even as part of the composition of toothpaste tubes.
However, lead lasting danger came as an additive to motor fuel.
Clair Patterson turned his attention to the question of all the lead in the atmosphere and that about 90% of it appeared to come from car exhaust pipes.  He set about to comparing lead levels in the atmosphere now with the levels that existed before 1923.
His ingenious idea was to evaluate these levels from samples in the ice cores in places like Greenland. This notion became the foundation of ice cores studies, on which much modern climatological work is based.
Patterson found no lead in the atmosphere before 1923.  Ethyl Corporation counter-attacked by cutting off all research grants that Patterson received.  Although Patterson was the unquestionable America’s leading expert on atmospheric lead, the National Research Council panel excluded him in 1971.
Eventually, his efforts led to the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and to the removal from sale of all leaded petrol in the USA in 1986.  Lead levels in the blood of the Americans fell by 80% almost within a year; but since the atmosphere contains so much lead and cannot be eliminated and is for ever, we are to live with a new constitution of heavy lead concentration in our blood stream and our bones.
Lead in paint was also banned in 1993, 44 years after Europe has banned it.  Leaded gasoline is still being sold overseas.  Ironically, all the research on lead effects on health were funded by the Ethyl Corporation; one doctor spent 5 years taking samples of urine and faces instead of blood and bones where lead accumulate.
Refrigerators in the 1920s used dangerous gases and leaks killed more than a hundred in 1929 in a Cleveland hospital.  Thomas Midgley came to the rescue with a safe, stable, non-corrosive, and non-flammable gas called CFC.
A single kilo of chlorofluorocarbon can capture and annihilate 70,000 kilo of atmospheric ozone, which is no thicker than 2 millimeter around the stratosphere and whose benefit is to capture the dangerous cosmic rays.
CFC is also a great heat sponge 10,000 times more efficient than carbon dioxide responsible for the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature.
CFC was banned in 1974 in the USA but 27 million kilo a year are still being introduced in the market in other forms of deodorant or hairspray for example.  CFC will not be banned in the third world countries until 2010.
The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be 280 parts per million but it has increased to 360 and is roughly rising 0.025% a year and might be around 560 by the end of the century.
The seas soak up tremendous volumes of carbon and safely locked it away.  Since the Sun is burning 25% more brightly than when the solar system was young, what keeps our Earth stable and cool?
It seems that there are trillions upon trillions of tiny marine organisms that capture carbon from the rain falls and use it to make tiny shells. These marine organisms lock the carbon and prevent it from re-evaporating into the atmosphere; otherwise, the greenhouse effect of warming the atmosphere would have done much damage long time ago. These tiny organisms fall to the bottom of the sea after they die, where they are compressed into limestone.
Volcanoes and the decay of plants return the carbon to the atmosphere at a rate of 200 billion tones a year and fall to the Earth in rain.  The cycle takes 500,000 years for a typical carbon atom.  Fortunately that most of the rain fall in oceans because 60% of the rain that fall on land is evaporated within a couple of days.
Human has disturbed this cycle after the heavy industrialization era and is lofting about 7 billion tones each year.
There is a critical threshold where the natural biosphere stops buffering us from the effects of our emissions and actually starts to amplify them.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2014, 01:25:05 PM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other

Still a denier?
never was a denier, not even close
just irks me to see supposedly intelligent people sinking to the depths of morons like Bolt, who grasp at the smallest thing that proves nothing, in a vain attempt to back their own stance. All they do is actually harm the argument they are trying to put forward.

learn the difference between climate and weather, i would suggest.

If you listen to those supposedly in know, they say that the trend will be to more extreme weather conditions more often. One weather event on its own does not prove this, EITHER WAY!!!!

Just like when weather conditions return to a more average or "normal" cycle and Bolt and his idiotic cronies start spouting how it proves there is no climate change......
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #146 on: January 17, 2014, 01:27:55 PM »
What do you make of the hottest year on Australian record?

A 365 day weather event

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #147 on: January 17, 2014, 01:37:02 PM »
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other

Still a denier?
never was a denier, not even close
just irks me to see supposedly intelligent people sinking to the depths of morons like Bolt, who grasp at the smallest thing that proves nothing, in a vain attempt to back their own stance. All they do is actually harm the argument they are trying to put forward.

learn the difference between climate and weather, i would suggest.

If you listen to those supposedly in know, they say that the trend will be to more extreme weather conditions more often. One weather event on its own does not prove this, EITHER WAY!!!!

Just like when weather conditions return to a more average or "normal" cycle and Bolt and his idiotic cronies start spouting how it proves there is no climate change......

Well said Al. Way too much posturing from both sides trying to convince each time something happens. Its becoming like the reporting on the stock exchange - today the stockmarket fell(oh no, we're stuffed) tomorrow stock is up(hmm things on the up). Morons

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #148 on: January 17, 2014, 01:43:57 PM »
What do you make of the hottest year on Australian record?

A 365 day weather event
how long have records been kept? now compare that to how old the earth is.

If you really think one weather event, over one or a few days, proves anything, (either way), then you are no better that someone like Bolt. The only difference is you have opposing views.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #149 on: January 17, 2014, 02:00:11 PM »
Last question

: the ozone-depleting effects of CFCs in the atmosphere

lead into the atmosphere as a result of the large-scale combustion of leaded gasoline

What is you position this on the climate on the planet of earth


The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. I would assume Australia n records started sometime after white people arrived,