Doza

Is global warming attributable to human activities?

Studies of ice core records show that the present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has not been exceeded for the past 420 000 years, and possibly not for 20 million years.

The observed changes in climate, especially temperature increases since about 1970, cannot be explained by natural causes such as solar activity.For the past 420 000 years global atmospheric carbon dioxide has only varied between about 180 and 280 parts-per-million (ppm), and stayed steady at about 280 ppm from 1 000 to 250 years ago.

However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, some 250 years ago, the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased dramatically.

Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), land clearing and agricultural practices have:

increased carbon dioxide by more than a third

increased nitrous oxide levels by about 17 per cent

methane concentrations have more than doubled.

The observed changes in climate, especially temperature increases since about 1970, cannot be explained by natural causes such as solar activity.

Scientists use computer models to simulate past and future climate variations. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1 000 years indicate that this recent warming is unusual and is unlikely to have resulted from natural causes alone.

Simulations of the 20th century have been driven by observed changes in various factors that affect climate.

When only natural factors, such as volcanic and solar activity, are included in the models, the simulations do not explain the observed warming in the second half of the century. Natural factors contributed to the observed warming of the first half of the 20th century. However, most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-induced increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Source: CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) http://www.csiro.au/org/AboutCSIRO.html

But of course, the CSIRO are a leftist, hippy, scaremongering, bangwagon jumping, credibility-less, fake-science-espousing, BBC and Fox News loving organisation who only distributes this sort of research because they get huge sums of money for it (even though the Aussie govt have long been AGW deniers and had nothing to gain from this research) and want us all to get taxed to the hilt for it because..................umm......whatever. But DON'T BELIEVE THEM! Instead turn to a science fiction writer for your 'facts' and focus on Al Gores mistakes.

Deny deny deny. And hope it goes away. And sound 'cool' cause you are rebellin against the 'system' like, you know. And keep polutin yo!

QUOTE (nakhonsi sean @ 2007-11-13 17:41:01)

Are you implying MIT, Berkley, Woods Hole, Harvard Smithsonian, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck Institute, USC, University of London, Alabama Huntsville, Danish National Space Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, etc, are right wing think tanks and employ pseudo-scientists?

This is interesting because I thought you were implying these institutions were among those that dispute man made global warming but after a quick search this is what I found:

Max Planck

http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrati...9301/index.html

In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.

Woods Hole

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...th/culprits.htm

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history.

While it is impossible to establish a direct causal link between greenhouse gas accumulation and individual, relatively short-term climatic events, it is certain that we have been experiencing increasing numbers of climatic events unprecedented in the human experience. It is also certain that many of the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, have lengthy residence times in the atmosphere and that we will continue to be affected for years or even centuries to come by the atmospheric burden we are creating today.

While the concentrations of almost all greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide has had the greatest effect on changing the climate.

University of Cambridge

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007020201

Professor Nigel Weiss, an expert in solar magnetic fields, has rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming.

“Although solar activity has an effect on the climate, these changes are small compared to those associated with global warming,” he said. “Any global cooling associated with a fall in solar activity would not significantly affect the global warming caused by greenhouse gases.

“This is of course a controversial issue and there is a vocal lobby arguing against the link between anthropogenic gas emissions and climatic change. However I share the view of the majority of the scientific community that the evidence for such a link and thus the occurrence of man-made global warming is significant and a matter of grave concern.”

MIT

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/co2.html

carbon dioxide, the gas that has been a primary driver of global climate change in recent decades, according to a team of scientists that includes a professor from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/connorsr/www/docs/Incon..._Journalist.pdf

COMMUNICATING COMPLEXITY is one of the largest challenges facing both

scientists and journalists. Alex Beam dodges this challenge in his column by

suggesting that there isn't a scientific consensus on whether climate change exists.

The journal Science laid that debate to rest in December 2004 by showing that of

nearly a thousand peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, none concluded by

suggesting that human activities were not influencing the world's climate.

University of Oxford

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/main/faq/climatechange.html

What causes the climate to change?

The solar energy that comes to Earth from the sun drives the Earth's climate. To balance this influx of energy, heat escapes from the Earth back into space as infrared radiation. Certain gases are transparent to the incoming solar energy, and let it pass through on its way to the Earth's surface. However, when this radiation is reemitted from the Earth at longer wavelengths, these same gases absorb a large proportion of it, and prevent it from escaping. Ultimately this has the same effect as a glass greenhouse, and raises the Earth's surface temperature.

Life on Earth relies upon this process occurring, keeping the Earth much warmer than planets with no atmospheric greenhouse gases, so a natural amount of these gases is essential. However, we have gradually been adding too much of these gases artificially, causing the Earth's climate to change.

The chief greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide which contributes 60% to the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'.

EDIT - Although it does appear the Danish Space Institute's research points more towards the sun but bascially you have experts who say one thing and experts who say the other. Its my understanding there are a whole lot more experts pointing to man made climate change. I believe it - the greenhouse effect is well documented and not denied, and I believe a build up of GHGs lead to the advanced greenhouse effect. Those GHGs are coming from us. Simple.

We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

This is one of the most outlandish crazy comments I have ever read!

For those too lazy to click on the link, here's the summary:

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.

But hey, what do they know right? Its all a conspiracy and we are better off doing nothing...............................

The Royal Society is a great example of a respected scientific institute. Read what they say about it here:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

If the science was so shaky and there was a mass of evidence to discredit the anthropogenic global warming theory, companies like Exxon would still be denying it. But they aren't. No one really is any more, well no one from any preeminent institutions anyway. But feel free to give us another science lesson - I'll take mine from the likes of the Royal Society thanks.

Ha ha, you naysayers make me laugh trying to convince us with your 'science'. For real climate science I will go to credible, independant experts. And there are plenty of them who have plenty of evidence that links the rise of GHGs with a rise of average temperatures and the global warming phenomena.

But wait, they are all part of a world wide money making rip off scam right?

Your reply seems somewhat ill educated

Your English seems somewhat ill educated I'm afraid.

There is enough evidence to point to anthropological warming (the link between the rise in GHGs and temperatures). I have never stated its an absolute fact - please show me where I have. But the possible impacts of global warming are so catastrophic its prudent to take action (provided its not to the detrement of development etc etc) by reducing the build up of GHGs, principally CO2, which contribute to the worsening greenhouse effect. Even big oil says as much!

Errr......a shop? Central, Robinson.......you can even buy them on the street by soi 11.

Seriously, can some not do anything without this forum or what?

You speak level 1 Thai but coudnt find KSR? Are you serious? Couldnt you just get a map and direct the guy?

If you believe that mankind can have no impact on the environment (and therefore climate) you are just plain ignorant.

If you simply prefer to put your head in the sand, say there are worse that *could* happen, then so be it - just hope you don't have kids/grandkids/nephews or nieces who are going to have to live with the effects of planetary pollution and destruction the likes of you and your like have left on this planet for future generations to deal with long after you're gone.

I wouldn't be getting into a cab headed for that area.

Why not?

What do you do all day?

Even oil companies these days realise the need to reduce emissions and acknowledge the link (some link at least) between CO2 emissions and rising temps and the need to do SOMETHING because the possible impacts of doing nothing could be catastrophic. We might not be 100% sure, but if we wait till we are, it could be too late. Why wait?

From the old baddy of climate science, Exxonmobil:

The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

Al Gores film is not the be all and end all of climate science. He is one man who is trying to raise the issue.

There are thousands of climate scientists from esteemed institutions such as the Royal Society, UN, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, et al who can show you more than coincidences and plenty of evidence. Junkscience dot com I am sure is an esteemed institution but I have never heard of it before.

But wait, they are all part of a new world order climate conspiracy to further their own agendas right?

But it's completely ridiculous and arrogant of mankind to think that we are so powerful and controlling so as to change and control the effects of the sun, atmosphere, geology and oceans, which are more infinitely powerful and climate influencing than anything mankind can ever do.

Riiiiiiiiight. So CFCs and GHGs have no effect on the ozone layer and the very simple concept of the greenhouse effect? So an infinite amount of man made GHGs will have no heat trapping effect? None?

There must be a lot of dumb scientist out there. Idiots from the world's top institutions are getting it all wrong. They are all crazy people and the world is flat.

Oh, you are right, there is no cost to climate change (man made or natural) - this idiots are mistaken. An increase in frequency and level of hurricanes doesn't cost anything in damage bills, rising sea levels won't effect islands and low lying countries so they won't have to build costly sea walls and other mitigation solutions (Maldives / Netherlands etc). More droughts also don't cost farmers and industries anything either lets not forget that.

You are a genuis. Climate expert and economist. Its all a conspiracy this climate change thing.

Time for a new thread since the RWC is done and dusted?

Let this one slide off the bottom and start a general one: World Rugby - discussion and Thailand viewing etc OR do we start a S14 / Tri Nations specific one and a Northern Hemisphere one too?

Also BKK 7s on this weekend. Serevi (yes THE Serevi) is playing.

Apart from the occasion, the game was ordinary. About half of it was spent kicking to each other from between the 22s. Mostly bombs because guys are too nervous to run it for fear of it being turned over. So we see a kicking duel of immensly average skill. Many were kick and hopes.

Apart from the break from Tait, one from Steyne, some goal kicking and some good breakdown work, there was not a lot of great rugby on display.

But the tournament overall was awesome. And the Bokke have been consistently good over the last few years and deserve the cup. So well done.

The thing about quotas is no self respecting guy wants to feel he was picked in the team because of his colour and not because he is the best in his position - it would be ambarrassing. But perhaps they would work in lower grades or at junior / development level.

Why do Thais insist on still using (wrongly) the '0' to denote hundred hours or 24 hour time even when they are using am/pm for twelve hour time?

E.g. 04.00pm /

What is up with that?!

Well since this is the Land of Smiles and home to such great Buddhist ideas like no confrontation and kreng jai, what did we really expect?

Just keep smiling and whatever you do, don't confront anyone!

I dont think you will find Gore is doing the scientific work. He is not claiming to be a scientist. He is merely raising the evidence scientists have uncovered and bringing to the world.

To disregard him because he isn't a scientist is stupid.

The vast majority of credible scientist concur man made GHG emissions are effecting our climate and accelerating the greenhouse effect. There is a small but vocal lot that argue otherwise or that we can't be sure. If we wait till we are sure, it could be too late. How stupid of us. If there was still a large consensus that there is not enough evidence to make this claim, countries like the US and companies like Exxon, would never have made the turnaround thay have by admitting such. They have.

Gore was a climate activist long before he was VP. He has a huge amount of credibilty, to argue otherwise is just funny.

I agree! I have never heard so much whinging from the Poms as I have this world cup and so much sh*t dished out to losing teams. Talk about being good winners - they have been terrible. Just because they got a wind up from the Aussie administration who said they were an average team. Well what would YOU say after their last 4 years (last two games notwithstanding as comments were prior to that)???

Geez....get over it.

What a load of drivel.

Well done to England and SA.

But I must say. the England v France game was exciting due to the occasion and the close score. But the spectacle itself, purely in terms of the rugby played, was not great in opinion - except for some magnificent forward play at the odd time.

Same goes for the SA V Argies game. There were patches of simply woeful play where one team would aimlesslely or badly kick to the other, the wing or fullbakc would catch it and seemingly have no option but to put a a bomb or some other aimless kick, only for the same to be repeated 3 more times before someone knocked on and a scrum was called.

Again this was interspersed with some good forward play, turnovers, and a few attacking raids but they were few and far between.

Yes yes, I am an antipodean and you will say we play a different brand of rubgy but I am happy for a more traditional game and I don't care if a team wins by kicking but I hate very average play, such as consistent crap kicking and lack of imagination or flair in attack, dominating games.

Lets hope for a cracker next week.

I've got a funny feeling the Argies are going to get up.