Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climategate

Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.
Click to expand...
If correct then that is the most scientifically relevant and useful comment I've heard from anyone, anywhere in this entire debate.

Taking that as correct, and looking at charts of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it does however suggest that the issue has been totally misrepresented to the general public. The real threat would seem to be acidification of the oceans, not a rise in temperature of the atmosphere, since atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at a roughly linear pace despite a parabolic rise in emissions.

"Ocean change" would be a better term than "climate change".
 
Some proof:

Now to that alarming research on marine life in the southern ocean which shows that the tipping point where animals will struggle to survive will come sooner than scientists previously thought.

Researchers at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales are warning that acidity in the Southern Ocean will reach destructive levels where it will dissolve the shells of marine organisms by 2030.

As Jane Cowan reports that is at least twenty years earlier than scientists had previously predicted

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tighter-timeline-for-ocean-organisms/
 
Knobby22 said:
I agree the ETS is flawed but we have to act!
Click to expand...
Knobby, usually your posts are really sensible, but I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
Are you suggesting that although the ETS is badly flawed, we should still be implementing it? If so, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Why not start of with whatever action being taken being right and in line with the rest of the world?
 
Knobby22 said:
We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.
Click to expand...
I propose there is an annual world Hold Your Breath Day. Every man, woman and child (pets if able) shall hold their breath for 10 seconds to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It could be incorporated into the Earth Hour held on the last Saturday of March although I don't recommend a full hour without breathing.
 
Wysiwyg said:
I propose there is an annual world Hold Your Breath Day. Every man, woman and child (pets if able) shall hold their breath for 10 seconds to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It could be incorporated into the Earth Hour held on the last Saturday of March although I don't recommend a full hour without breathing.
Click to expand...

LOL. You mean something to prevent this wysi.
 

Attachments

  • global_warming.jpg
    global_warming.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 122
Julia said:
Knobby, usually your posts are really sensible, but I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
Are you suggesting that although the ETS is badly flawed, we should still be implementing it? If so, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Why not start of with whatever action being taken being right and in line with the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

Sorry, was unclear.
The ETS is flawed. We should be able to come up with a better scheme.
Secondly, I mean we as the world should act.
I think Rudd but think he lost his way on this because he remembers being cheered when he at the last climate change meeting and now at Copenhagen he has nothing to show anyone that he has achieved.
 
derty said:
There is no where in central Aust that you can cut a channel to fill now days, it is all well above sea level.

The inland sea that is talked about is the areas of Australia that were inundated or represent palaeo-continental shelves in our past. Two of these major periods were the Devonian (time of armoured fish - approx 400Ma ago) and the Cretaceous (time of large sea going reptiles such as plesiosaurs - approx 145-65Ma ago). Australia essentially gets younger as you head east so it common for there to exist fossil coastlines and shallow seas preserved within the continent to give the illusion of an ancient inland sea.
Click to expand...
In an ironic twist we have been emptying inland basins of water with no better example than the Aral Sea.

While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).

Elsewhere though there is more potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_canal
 
drsmith said:
In an ironic twist we have been emptying inland basins of water with no better example than the Aral Sea.

While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).

Elsewhere though there is more potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_canal
Click to expand...

Interesting, isn't there also a lake in Russia that's emptying?
 
drsmith said:
While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).Elsewhere though there is more potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_canal
Click to expand...

Lol, I bags the excavator job. But seriously, the Bradfield Scheme is a typical greedy, hair-brained, short-sighted, city slicker idea and thankfully someone pulled him up before he attempted world conquest. Leave nature be.
 
tja125 said:
I'm all for fixing other problems, but this thread was on climate change specifically, and I'm certainly not an alarmist. Maybe you should focus on widening your own narrow focus considering you are so quick to put other people in some category inside your little head. don't be so rude... moron yourself...
Click to expand...
If you look very carefully, I didn't call you a moron. That is against the ASF code of conduct. I said anyone who uses the argument from now on qualifies as one.

Please don't call people morons.

What does strike me is how alarmists are unable or unwilling to make these subtle differentiations and consequently arrive at inappropriate conclusions... you know, stuff like not being able to find genuine warming in the data and cherrypicking data, accepting data with a ludicrous amount of (obvious) artefact, and even hiding inconvenient truths to come to and expedient conclusion anyway.

As for not considering yourself an alarmist... what would you call me if I suggested pre-emptively nuking China "just in case" they decide to invade us some time in the next century or two?
 
Knobby22 said:
Some proof:

Now to that alarming research on marine life in the southern ocean which shows that the tipping point where animals will struggle to survive will come sooner than scientists previously thought.

Researchers at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales are warning that acidity in the Southern Ocean will reach destructive levels where it will dissolve the shells of marine organisms by 2030.

As Jane Cowan reports that is at least twenty years earlier than scientists had previously predicted

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tighter-timeline-for-ocean-organisms/
Click to expand...

Ahem...

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures””such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters””unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean””causing it to “acidify” ””researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater””one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.
Click to expand...
 
Ocean Acidification and Corals

Edit to add>> Here is a comment from the above blog which is spot on and furthers my consistent point that co2 is a red herring... meanwhile, there are more important things being ignored:

Make no mistake. Corral(sic) reefs are in trouble. Largely from pesticide and fertilizer runoff as well as sewage sludge. CO2 is the least of their problems.
Click to expand...
 
I feel it is about time we all start to live our lives as described by some religous doctine. If we change our lifestyles and god exists (<0.0000001%) we save ourselves from eternal damnation, and live like gods for eternity. Else we wasted a few sundays in church......................
 
After listening to James Hensen, the NASA climatologist, on Lateline, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is global warming and that man is responsible for it.

He holds the opinion that an ETS is useless to prevent GW and that the only solution is a direct tax on fossil fuels. He likens the ETS to the indulgences granted by the Catholic Church (in the middle ages?) that effectively allowed sinners to go on sinning, but could buy salvation if they had enough money to do so, by buying indulgences from the Church. That kept the Bishops happy as they got the income and the sinners happy as they could go on sinning (if they could afford it). The ETS is the same. It allows the major polluters to continue polluting by buying offsets, but it doesn't stop them polluting. Governments claw in the money from the cost of the offsets.

The topic of this thread is Climategate. All we know is that a few scientists have been over enthusiastic in their endeavours to prove global warming is man made. But why does that negate the 99% of the rest of the science that also seems to prove the same thing (and before anyone asks me to show the proof, I cannot, I am not an expert and simply have to make my judgement on what seems to be the most persuasive argument).

To be honest, what influenced me enormously at arriving at the conclusion that what most scientists are saying is right, is that Fox News is saying the opposite and promoting the argument that the leaked emails are proof that the whole of the science is fabricated. Being on the same side of the argument as them is anathema to me and I started to question the facts of the doubters and they held less water than the pro man made climate change argument.

I respect the opinions of everyone (well most) on ASF, but what I find interesting is that those who are against the science that seems to prove that man is responsible for GW and are latching on to whatever flimsy arguments that the doubters may offer, are also those who, like me, would ridicule the arguments put forward by the God believers on this forum who reject evolution and the rest of the science that explains the universe without the need for some omnipotent deity being involved.

Why do we hold science in such esteem when it comes to the topic of religion, but doubt it so much when it comes to the major cause of climate change. If we are honest with ourselves, few of us understand the science underpinning either area and chose to go with whatever aligns with our prejudices.
 
Eh?

There must be AGW because Fox says there isn't? :confused:

That's not very logical.

Fox are undoubtedly outright denialists (and a pack of numpties to be frank), but they serve as a diametrically opposed counterpoint to the hystrionics of the AGW lobby.

I also must take issue with your statement that 99% of the rest of science proves the same thing. It absolutely does not... well only in the Goreists fantasies and in the now hysterical propaganda.

In the real world, pro AGW science is in real trouble... at least the Goreist/IPCC version of it is.
 
BTW, another simmering controversy of climategate proportions is the lifestyles and "carbon footprints" of Copenhagen delegates.

What a colossal hypocrisy!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
Comments 113 | Comment on this article


On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral.:D:D According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
Click to expand...
 
If I hear ONE MORE TIME the media broadcasting that friggin' **SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!** by that kiddy starring in the global Warming Horror Movie Advertisement (ostensibly created to SHOCK and AWE the participants of this gobfest - and the Rest Of The Known World to boot) - I'll go mental :banghead: :silly:

Talk about gratuitous scare tactics.....

:angry:
 
Aussiejeff said:
....and just how many follow-up **Super Summits** do you think the World's Polly Waffles will be tempted to organise after being **wowed** by this stunning event?

Next stop Vanuatu?

Siberia?

Alice Springs?

Boggled....
Click to expand...
How about Hawkes Bay, I'll invest in a fleet of limos. :D
 
Top