Global Warming

It possibly may not be from human influence.

Milankovic Cycles

I wouldn't normally quote Wikipedia but it came up first on the search engine and states the idea.

Barnsey, just because you believe the rhetoric doesn't make it true.

Some of us don't buy it as a new phenomenon. What I mean is, since the last ice age, the world has warmed. In the 14th century or thereabouts, it was MUCH warmer than it is now. Prior to the "depths" of the last ice age, global cooling ocurred, and prior to that it probably was warmer.

There weren't any cars or factories or air conditioners leading up to the 14th century warm cycle, but it still happened.

The real problem facing the earth is not global warming, but global population size, which is exploding faster than cane toads.

So Gerhardp1

can't you see the answer lay within your answer?

"The real problem facing the earth is not global warming, but global population size, which is exploding faster than cane toads."

Which ia why this global warming problem is real because of the people...

Richard

No yug Or yam about it .. LOL

Gad, I do like the latest attempt to deny global warming by blaming it all on overpopulation. That way we don't feel our way of life has anything to answer for. Booming population numbers are a direct outcome of technology. The world's population boom exactly parallels the industrial age, for obvious reasons.
If only those third world types would do the decent thing and just get on with basic farming in poverty and not want all those nice power consuming gadgets like ours.
Make me another G and T boy while I sit on the verandah watching the sun go down on the world.

There's no need to deny something that doesn't exist.

The earth was MUCH warmer 600 years ago.

There were no cars, boats, or planes, or industrial age.

The population size is causing many problems on earth, but it is NOT causing "global warming".

People with a weak argument base always put words in the mouth of their debating opponent.

What is the source of your statement that the world was MUCH warmer 600 years ago?
Yes. there have been periods when the Earth was much warmer, and also MUCH colder but much further back than 600 years ago (as far as I am aware). The worlds CO2 levels have moved up and down over 100s of millions of years and regulated temperature. That is what Gaia is all about. The difference now is that human activity is releasing the CO2 stored over vast time epochs from coal and oil . We are releasing it at a very fast rate, whereas previously the changes occurred very slowly and the world's biosystems could adapt.
The issue isn't whether or not the carbon was there previously and whether or not we have had warming before. It is the speed of the change this time that is so unique, The only periods we have had fast changes comparative to the present resulted in massive extinction of species. This time there is no explanation like a huge meteorite hit that caused previous fast changes, it is human activity unlocking the Co2 that is responsible for the current rate of warming.
If you really want to debate this, start by looking at the work of the man whose work for NASA on detecting life systems in space began the current research. James Lovelock. For what it is worth, his original predictions, going back to the early 70's, have so far been precisely accurate.

Gerhardp1

Ain't we living in an expanding universe? would not we have been closer to the SUN 600 years ago?

Cheers

Richard

Maybe, but your theory goes bang because at the last ice age we would have been even closer. :)

No Land Rights for Gay Whales on the Franklin!! was the catch cry of old today its Global Warming.

Maybe the dog needs to read some more?

Kim

Thanks heavens for global warming; without it we would still have an inland sea in Central Australia. That would mean no deserts to play in and even worse, no Birdsville Pub!

Brian

Franga

How remiss of me. I'll give the damn dog a good kicking for this lapse of thought.

This may cause a few methane emissions. However, I'll capture the output in a sealed container.

LOL

Regards

Kim

While I agree with most of what you have said, the evidence suggests that this is not a 7-10 year drought. It is right in line with global modelling first done in the 70's and much developed since. The modelling is not just for Australia, it is internationally consistent. And probably most importantly. the world's permafrost began melting about 4 years ago. That being the case, it would be prudent to begin planning on the basis that this isn't a drought. The National Farmers Federation don't think it is a drought and they are probably in as good a position as anyone to know. They argue that the responses of both our political parties are inadequate. They want longer term planning to assist farmers in rethinking what lands will remain productive, what new crops and crop management can be put in place or assitance to get farmers off the land where farming is no longer viable. Sort of like South Australia's Goyder line of 100 years ago. The NFF reckon handouts for drought relief is just a waste. Curious to see the Greens and farmers moving to the same policies.
If the modelling is correct, and so far its only error has been that it has been too conservative, we don't have the time to sit around seeing how it all pans out. Suppose the global warming lot are wrong? The steps we will have taken to change energy, water use and possibly population planning will mainly give positive lifestyle results anyway. Suppose they are right, and it sure looks more and more that they are, and our responses are inadequate or too late. The consequences for future generations are catastrophic. Is it worth the gamble?

"the evidence suggests that this is not a 7-10 year drought" I haven't seen that evidence you talk about and there is a lot that is contrary to what you are saying mfewster.

"The NFF reckon handouts for drought relief is just a waste" is contrary to the requests from constituent bodies. If the farmers don't have that small cash flow, they would stop entirely their part of the economy, small towns would have worse adjustment.

The cash is useful, but it doesn't adjust the mindset to get people coping. There are still quite a few who miss out on any cent..I am in a position to see the social forces and dangers, even though I live in a very fortunate area of Australia.

I agree with the thrust of your last paragraph and the questions posed. I am a reader of New Scientist and we probably have gone too far already, so there can be no going back with ease as the melt of the tundras is underway to let out the methane of rotting vegitation. The thing that you don't mention and we really don't have space to address is that climatic change have been ocurring since the planet was formed. Not just since it was named.

Re NFF position. I am in no way arguing against helping farmers and the rural communities. Quite the opposite. The NFF is arguing that just giving handouts makes things worse because we encourage farmers to hold on and plant again next year and go even further into debt. We need to do a lot more than that. While helping the rural communities now we need to also take a long term view. What will be viable? What new infrastructure do we need to be putting in? If some crops/areas are no longer viable then it is the responsibility of the entire country to help with the restructuring.
John, I also agree with you that Climate change has been going on for a long time, however this time it is very different. I have another post in this thread discussing that. In that other post I also mentioned James Lovelock. It was his work that first drew attention to climate change and pointed out what was different about the climate change taking place now to previous climate change movements. His modelling is the modelling I was referring to re. the current "drought." His modelling was also the first to draw attention to (and correctly forecast) permafrost melt and the implications. The only real error I am aware of in his modelling is that it is happening a quite a bit faster than he originally forecast. He says he hadn't counted on the speed of industrialization in third world countries. For what it's worth, his modelling reckons it really starts to hit the fan around 2020.
Cheers