> Every noob knows that correlation != causation

The first link is absurd, and the second one is all about internet traffic/searches -- not actual global warming or # of pirates.

Go to the post with your name on it, and fight me there.

Kill 'em all.

Second old thread I'm dredging up. But it's all good because I'm supplying new additional information. This one is a $30 million drilling project that went 2km deep. Results published very recently with an item about it in the New Zealand Herald. And no, the Herald (like other NZ news sources) is not controlled by people with an agenda as is the case in many other countries, sorry.

The evidence keeps mounting up. Yes this article talks about CO2 and yes other gases have the potential to increase the greenhouse effect,  but the relative quantity of each gas, and some of the facts mentioned in this article shows that CO2 is still the most important.

I know you guys will keep dreaming and wishing that it's ok to pump out as much CO2 and other crap as you like, as long as the economy is strong, but at least I will hopefully get to giggle to myself when I read your replies.

I am particularly fond of how the guy in this article admits that they have made mistakes in climate change predictions in the past, but are working to fix them. And that's what this study has helped to do.

"Kiwis solve global warming riddle"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562595

A couple of nice quotes from this article, since most people don't follow links.

"New Zealand scientists have helped solve one of the riddles of global warming by drilling deep into the ancient Antarctic rock.

An ingenious drill developed by Victoria University's Alex Pyne delved more than 2km through ice, sea and rock to pull out layers of ancient sea floor that were formed the last time greenhouse gases reached the levels they are now approaching.

The drill team, led by Victoria University Antarctic research centre director Tim Naish, found seas were warm enough to melt a large chunk of Antarctica's ice when atmospheric CO2 was only slightly higher than it is today.

The findings from the $30 million Antarctic Geological Drilling (Andrill) project were published in the journal Nature yesterday and may be used to help the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) update its predictions of sea level rise.

Mr Naish said scientists were given a "kick up the bum" in 2001 when the IPCC did not take into account melting West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets because it did not think the science supporting it was strong enough. Scientists at a climate conference in Copenhagen last week decided there was now enough evidence to double the IPCC's predicted sea level rise this century from 0.5m to 1m."

"The drilling found that when atmospheric CO2 reached 400 parts per million (ppm) - around 4 million years ago - it exaggerated a 40,000-year cycle of warming and cooling caused by tilts in the Earth's axis. That was enough to melt the Ross ice shelf and create the conditions to melt the entire West Antarctic ice sheet."

"The Andrill team is still studying the cores to check just how warm the sea was when the ice sheet melted. Modelling suggests it could be about 5oC."

"CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now around 387 ppm, up from about 280 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution. Even optimistic IPCC predictions expect it to reach 400 ppm by the end of the century.

Publication of the research follows a climate congress in Copenhagen, Denmark, last week, where more than 2500 climate scientists and researchers told world leaders there was now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming.

Victoria University climate scientist Andy Reisinger, who attended the summit, said some of the uncertainties in the predictions of the IPCC had been cleared up in the past year and new research showed sea levels would rise more in the next 20-30 years than had been expected.

The draft conclusions from the conference said a failure to agree strong carbon reduction targets at political negotiations could bring "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate that would be "very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with"."

Well I better add a little more. We have people here who do not deny climate change, they just deny it has been caused by humans. Let me repaste one short quote and leave it at that:

""CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now around 387 ppm, up from about 280 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution."

you know the Ruskis say higher temps produce more CO2 and not the other way around?

oh and please explain why its not as warm as it was in 1999 even though CO2 has increased every year.

Increased heat warms oceans and releases tons of trapped methane into the atmosphere. Methane is what, 27 times more powerful as a "greenhouse gas" than CO2?

Natural processes are always in play that further and counteract these effects. Mankind would be foolish to ignore yet at the same time arrogant to presume that we have a controlling impact over climate change.

As it is, all I see are proposals which are more aimed at economic control [and usually rape] and not at all concerned with actual emissions reductions. You want to export X% of your CO2 production to some other nation with no emissions laws? Good job. You saved the planet. Wait. You did nothing but hurt your economy. BRILLIANT!

Again I say, Kill 'Em All.

If anyone in power really cared we wouldn't still be mass producing CFCs while real people suffer from a real problem they contribute to. Instead we just herd the masses into stupid wastes of time and money. Go humanity.

I love how you guys have chosen to ignore the study done by the University of Victoria (who, please tell me, must be paid or want the economy to suffer to come up with these findings?) and ramble on about something else.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> Increased heat warms oceans and releases tons of trapped methane into the atmosphere. Methane is what, 27 times more powerful as a "greenhouse gas" than CO2?

Yup I have heard of this happening, in the arctic especially. Because there is less ice every year.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/images/arctic_sea_ice_extent5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html&usg=__8410NPaPDgPKZAtaSmEbylxl9S8=&h=2250&w=3000&sz=1399&hl=en&start=21&um=1&tbnid=5BjI2K6-A_SAiM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dice%2Bcover%2Barctic%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1

Globl warming has called additional methane to release that wouldn't normally. It's not as if this methane just decided to release one day and that's what caused it. So we shouldn't fight back and try restrict how much the climate changes?

> Natural processes are always in play that further and counteract these effects. Mankind would be foolish to ignore yet at the same time arrogant to presume that we have a controlling impact over climate change.

That's why the observed ice cover is reducing FASTER than pridicted by the models on that chart? hmmm maybe I should agree with you in part - when we start to heat up too much it will swing back the other way and cause an ice age - very desirable outcome!

> As it is, all I see are proposals which are more aimed at economic control [and usually rape] and not at all concerned with actual emissions reductions. You want to export X% of your CO2 production to some other nation with no emissions laws? Good job. You saved the planet. Wait. You did nothing but hurt your economy. BRILLIANT!

Quoting myself (I feel special): "study done by the University of Victoria (who, please tell me, must be paid or want the economy to suffer to come up with these findings?)"

> Again I say, Kill 'Em All.

When the mid-west turns to desert I'd love to see what happens to your economy. You are probably talking about yourself here.

@ > You_Fool: I see your point it sounds about right to me. Especially Balsz' last comment where he seems to be claiming that getting burnt has nothing to do with cloud cover. I'll address that now.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Yuk it up, laughing boy.  The atmosphere isn't retaining HEAT more than it did 10 years ago, despite a rising concentration of "greenhouse gases".   I don't mean any one day.  All year long.   It's not as hot as it was 10 years ago.  It wasn't very hot last year.  Or the year before that.  The planet is not retaining heat like you pretend it does.

My point is the random time period that you choose is arbitary. The Earth does not care about years or 10-year periods. You randomly pick out one or two years and say 'hmm its not as hot' and think that this is a good representation of Earth's climate???? See my previous link regarding ice cover in the arcitc.

>Air pressure isn't up either, our atmosphere isn't measurably denser, so....

so....? Please finish what you are saying, I can't draw conclusions for you. So we release a lot of new gas into the air and it magically disapears? God makes sure that the CO2 and other gases caused by humans are the exact gasses that are put... back into big holes in the ground? Into all those new forests that are growing to replace the Amazon? Those oceans that love having their chemistry fooled around with?

> You guys still can't model the hydrosphere. So what? So shut up about climate change until you can accurately model the single greatest engine of global climate.  How much sea water evaporates determines weather.

No I can't, and that's another difference between me and you. I admit that have not personally conducted a review of every model of climate change. Those guys from Victoria University can admit that they were part of the panel that got it wrong in the past, but are working to fix the gaps in the models. You say that you know it all, that "You guys" can't model the hydrosphere. So what, can you?

> and I'm on the 28th parallel and I've had days where I got a sunburn through blue jeans.  a lot depends on the humidity and cloud cover density in teh sixteen miles of air overhead.  What? "Not a cloud in the sky"?--did you see stars in the sky at noon?

What are you going on about here? "Not a cloud in the sky" is a common phrase to describe when there is not a cloud in the sky. ie there is no cloud density to help hold back the rays because there is no clouds. What ozone hole on the 28th parallel are you talking about? I was talking to You_Fool about the ozone hole over NZ and now you want to talk about getting burnt through jeans when no ozone hole has ever gone near the US? Perhaps you are just a bit too white and pasty. Ozone hole map, FYI.
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/images/7/atmosphere/figures/medium/23_ozone_hole.gif
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/60938main_ozone_hole.jpg
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/image/362/m-ozone-ozone_hole-l.jpg

Where did you go from the stem cell thread? I was really looking forward to reading your thoughts on the latest developments that I posted

Thanks, although I've had enough with  this one, mainly cause I've been motivated to start a new thread, which I'll do later.

I'll read replies (as long as they aren't as long as mine or provide more random links than me (but really, try to find some better links than NASA, for example) ) but probably won't respond. It's been thrashed about enough - I restarted it to provide some info regarding the results of that recent testing program. But it was silly of me to do so, no new information will convince anyone to change their own mind.

But what would?

A new climate model that is reviewed and certified by [EVERY scientist, John McCain, the Pope, yourself, insert another name here]?

The mid-west turning into a desert?

Sea levels rising and an end to summer ice in the arctic?

A message from God that yup, the globe is warming?

Perhaps that's a new direction that would prevent the same old backwards and forwards. I'd be interested to hear if there was ANY kind of evidence/modeling/whatever that, assuming it happened, would make you go "hmm perhaps climate change is happening".

For me to say that I was wrong, it would take most of those (obviously paid and/or with dubious motivation) scientists and uni's conducting new tests, investigations, models, and saying that they were all wrong and have been misinterpretting everything [while some people would find that hard to do, many research scientists will admit they were wrong if a new and better test comes along]. A reduction in the quantity and extermity of weather events would also help.  It's only been a short while that I've been on the planet, so freely admit that my personal observations don't count for much, the frequency of record breaking accounts for a little more.

In relation to your 4 paragraphs:
1) This is why they are constantly trying to make the models better. As they do, predictions for the future are getting worse.

2) Methane in the arctic has, in previous years, been trapped by the pack-ice. The place is getting hotter much quicker than if humans were not around. Methane is released, indirectly caused by us and not easy (possible?) to reverse. But lets try prevent it getting worse.

3) Agreed. If somehow all nations could be policed into cutting emissions, then factories etc would have no where to move to and then it would be a level playing field. If restrictions in the US caused factories etc to move to India (not doing anything about climate change???) then the restrictions would be useless.  Something better needs to be done.

4) Agreed in part. I like nuclear, if only there was unlimited fuel and we could continuously reprocess fuel rods and minimise waste then it would be perfect. Alas is not yet. I'm not convinced on wind; hopefully solar gets about 1000 times more efficient sometime soon :-/ but I'm liking tidal. New tidal generation going in not too far from where I live. Underwater pontoons with fins, small turbines and cables to shore. Add a few of them together and the quantity of electricity is good.

hahahaha you get better every time.

> since we are still polluting away and the weather is COOLING so so sooo sorry but the FACT no such trend as described exists is quite relevant

This is why ships can now access the northwest passage for the first time in many years? Why ice sheets are falling off the antarctic much more often, one being big enough to float up to NZ for the first time (if you said it's because NZ is cooler then I'm going to laugh more)

> if you're talking embryonic stem cells then you're talking failed experiments

Why don't you go look at the thread.

> Yeah I have no ozone hole, and we have bad sunburns.  So what does that tell you.

That you sir, are an idiot.

http://www.cancernz.org.nz/HealthPromotion/SkinCancerControl/Cancer/

"Skin cancer is the most common cancer in New Zealand, with New Zealanders at high risk of developing a skin cancer during their lifetime. Our skin cancer rates are among the highest in the world. Melanoma incidence rates in Australia and New Zealand are around four times as high as those found in Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom(1).

New Zealand

I can't believe that there are people who deny the ozone hole. I just thought that wasn't possible. You believe in supernatural things that you can't see because it was written in what is effectively a story book, but when NASA (one would assume a collective of minds that have a little more intelligence than you and I) produces a chart showing ozone depletion, you seem to write it off.

Lets look further abroad.
"The proportion of skin cancer cases in Chile affecting people under the age of 50 has increased from 12% to 20% in the last 2 years, according to a report by the charity Corporaci