Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

So I suppose you are actually hoping for a cataclysmic global warming which will wipe out all those superfluous people who can't adapt. Or do you have a solution?

Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.

And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs. This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.

And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia. And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.

Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.

 

[Ruby]

Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.

And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs. This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.

And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia. And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.

Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.

Explod, none of these things is going to stop the climate from changing. The climate has always been changing and will continue to do so. And your 65 years of climatic memories are meaningless in a scientific debate. I too, can remember when it was hotter, colder, wetter, dryer......... Scientific records show that in the past the climate has warmed more quickly than it is doing in the present, and that during your 65 years we have gone through a 30 year cooling cycle (post WWII) and a warming cycle, but there has been no warming for the last 10 years. All of this is within the overall warming cycle that began after the Little Ice Age.

What other members are saying is correct - we have much more to fear from a period of cooling than we do from slight warming. What we need is less hysteria, more acceptance of what nature does (because it will happen anyway) and adaptation.

I am not saying we shouldn't tackle things like over-population and pollution, but they are different issues.

 

[Logique]

Within that [Ice Age] article.....

However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.

Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is:

Solar Influences on Climate - Professor Joanna Haigh - Feb 2011 - Grantham Institute for Climate Change : http://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cli...r Influences on Climate_Executive Summary.pdf
..However, the response of climate on regional scales to changes in the composition and intensity of incident solar radiation is more complex. This is an area of active research and, while significant progress has been made, definitive answers require further investigation into effects such as the role of stratospheric ozone, oceanatmosphere interactions and the role of clouds..

What she might also have said is that she is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment, and acted on many UK and international panels.

So I think we can see where Prof. Haigh sits in the scheme of things. She would have us believe that the all-powerful trace gas CO2, now known to follow temperature changes, not lead them, is more powerful than the Sun!

Prof. Haigh, is winter colder than summer?

Speculative and misleading nonsense, aimed at the gullible.

 

[Calliope]

Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.

And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs. This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.

And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia. And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.

Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.

Yes a nonsense rant. What I asked was, do have a solution for overpopulation or are you relying on global warming to get rid of the superfluous people? I think you consider, as Wayne says, that you are one of the elite who is not part of the solution.

 

[medicowallet]

Within that [Ice Age] article.....Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is:

What she might also have said is that she is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment, and acted on many UK and international panels.

So I think we can see where Prof. Haigh sits in the scheme of things. She would have us believe that the all-powerful trace gas CO2, now known to follow temperature changes, not lead them, is more powerful than the Sun!

Prof. Haigh, is winter colder than summer?

Speculative and misleading nonsense, aimed at the gullible.

I wonder what level of research funding I would get to study whether man made CO2 is driving the sunspot cycle.

A google scholar search showed me that this is a truly original idea, and I would probably do the research for a 7-8 figure payment.

 

[bandicoot76]

Within that article



None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.

Are these possibilities hysteria

so whats your solution? cull a few billion ppl to reduce the population? its been tried before and has a name... its called genocide!! refer to previous posts on this thread related to the topic

 

[Julia]

I wonder what level of research funding I would get to study whether man made CO2 is driving the sunspot cycle.

A google scholar search showed me that this is a truly original idea, and I would probably do the research for a 7-8 figure payment.

Quite seriously, that's an excellent idea. To whom would you apply for funding?

 

[tothemax6]

so whats your solution? cull a few billion ppl to reduce the population? its been tried before and has a name... its called genocide!! refer to previous posts on this thread related to the topic

Now now, its not genocide if you're not 'choosy' .

Ironically, the West has the least problem with population due to sub-replacement birth rates. Or at least they would do, if they didn't simply make up the numbers with immigration of foreign nations. Ahhhh, does anybody do anything that is non-self-destructive nowadays, or for that matter, not just outright bad?

 

[bandicoot76]

heres a good link on how the peer review process has been manipulated:

http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/

very interesting!

 

[ghotib]

Is Another Little Ice Age coming?.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1PaMGqq5d

And further to the misrepresentations published in this News Ltd story and elsewhere:

In response to news inquiries and stories, Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement:

"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."

From the National Solar Observatory press release on which the News Ltd story is partly based.

It's always worth following up on stories in the mainstream press because even when the reporters understand them they rarely have room for details and of course they don't write the headlines. Logique obviously followed up Professor Joanna Haigh's comment in the same article, although he seems to confuse regional change with global change and to have stopped a little too soon. Dr Haigh's conclusion to the Briefing Paper from which Logique quoted:

Over the next several decades there may be an overall (temporary) decline in solar activity but at this stage, this is speculative. Even if solar activity were to reach the record low levels seen in the 17th century Maunder Minimum (implying a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed, averaged over the globe, of 0.2-0.6 Wm-2), it would only partially offset the increased climate warming projected through the uncontrolled anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (equivalent to a trapping of heat energy of around 4 Wm-2 over the next century.

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

No one has responded to my question above on the thread, but the following has come to me via an alternative source. Comments on it would be welcome.

The current ecological systems are adapted to live inside the current temperature range. We don't see trees in very hot and relatively dry environments. Most crops won't grow if it gets too hot. A number of crops won't set fruit for example if there arn't enough cold nights. These are just a few examples of consequences of a rapid increase in temperatures. Some areas might indeed become more amenable to agriculture but lack of sufficient daylight (in the norther hemisphere) and poor soils will limit any potential advantage

There is also the likelihood that increases in temperatures will trigger tipping points in various ecological systems around the world releasing huge further amounts of CO2 that would drive temperatures even higher. Particular examples that have been noted are

1) Release of huge amounts of methane currently locked up in the permafrost.
2) Release of carbon in the soil as it gets warmer
3) Reduction of tree cover as higher temperatures destroy current forest areas. This would work in 2 ways. Firstly the dead trees would effectively release further CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly the (dead) trees would unable to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere
4) Warming oceans would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The colder the ocean the more CO2 it can hold.

The other issue with a warming world is that extreme heat waves would become far more common. The consequences of this eco systems would be fatal (not to mention us.)

The unfortunate part is that if we believe current scientific research the earth is already committed to at least another 1 degree of warming as result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere . (It just takes a few decades (which is nothing in geological time) for the warming effect to be fully felt. The point of reducing CO2 emissions now is to forstall even bigger temperatures increases.

Apologies for taking so long to respond to this Julia. The question you originally asked was what's so bad about 2 degrees of warming. I'm commenting on the piece you quoted.

It's incomplete and obviously very generalised, but the general direction is right. A global average temperature increase of 2 deg C doesn't just mean slightly warmer breezes. It means more water vapour, which in turn means energy, in the atmosphere, leading to more extreme weather events - droughts, wildfires, cyclones, snowfalls, heavy rains, floods, storm surges, depending on where you are and the season they occur. Extreme weather events are an extra complication in growing food crops, added to changes in pest movements and populations, shifts in germination and pollination periods, loss of certainty for planting times. That all adds up to food shortages, which in turn can be expected to mean rebellions, wars, and increased economic uncertainty.

2 deg of warming also means sea level rise: even if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are not destabilised, the oceans expand as they warm. That leads to higher storm surges, and hence to damage, loss, and possibly abandonment of coastal land and infrastructure.

It's true that there has been rapid climate change in the past and it's probably true that humans and many other species could adapt to climate change in time. However it's also true that the global climate of the last 14,000 years - i.e. the whole of human civilisation - has been stable. Current global average temperature is at or just over (the uncertainty is mine) the top of the range it's occupied for the whole of that time. That means we face a climate of which there is no historical experience at the same time as we face peak oil, peak agriculture, peak fish, peak arable land...

I think the point that fossil carbon emissions to date already commit the earth to further warming is important. The state of the climate in 2020 is to a great extent already determined by past emissions. The urgency now is to prevent greater warming in later decades.

Hope this makes sense. References available in multiple posts from several posters on this thread, or on request.

Ghoti

 

[white_goodman]

id recommend the alarmists in this thread or anyone for that matter to watch this video, this isnt the "tipping point", this isnt the "crucial decade"...

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html

 

[Logique]

id recommend the alarmists in this thread or anyone for that matter to watch this video, this isnt the "tipping point", this isnt the "crucial decade"...http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html

Great contribution WG. Steven Hayward, Senior Fellow Pacific Research Institute, seems to think through the issues rationally and objectively. I like how he navigates a middle course on the issues, avoiding the artificial polarization of alarmist-denier.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I think the point that fossil carbon emissions to date already commit the earth to further warming is important. The state of the climate in 2020 is to a great extent already determined by past emissions. The urgency now is to prevent greater warming in later decades.Ghoti

You can "think" and regurgitate propaganda as much as you like, please let us all know about the observed evidence that shows man's measly 3% of total CO2 contribution has such a spiraling impact to the "safety" of earth. And then you can show us the observed evidence of how much temperatures will drop should man cut 5% and even 100% of CO2 emissions. Feel free at include all the zeros after the decimal place, we all have moderate knowledge of the basics so no need to round up.

 

[trainspotter]

CARMA reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.

http://carma.org/

Notice how Australia only has 2 that are on the radar?

 

[explod]

CARMA reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.

http://carma.org/

Notice how Australia only has 2 that are on the radar?

So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"

And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.

 

[trainspotter]

So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"

And as a developed western nation our influenced on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit the technology of bringing about good change.

Nope ....... that's not what I meant by it at all. I am suggesting in the scheme of things that Australia produces 1.3% of Global CO2 then we are the small fry of the world "polluting" economies.

I believe that as a country of a mere 22 million people we are putting the cart before the horse on this matter. I am not suggesting we wait for USA and China to clean up their act either.

So tell me why is it that all these people have placed solar generators on their roofs and not using the grid anymore PLUS the increase of wind turbine generators that suddenly we are using MORE electricity? (the most "polluting" sector) ALSO since the advent of 6 star enery efficient appliances as well as the EDUCATION of the populace to reduce their carbon footprint as well as a plethora of people who have gone "green" that we still need to puff up our chests and claim we are killing the planet? SURELY this would have had a decreasing effect on consumption??? HUH ????

Don't forget the Pink Batts and the energy efficient lightglobes we all have to have now. Building restrictions on new homes is now at 6 stars as well. Electric cars is another matter altogether. It all adds up !!!!

I am advocating that we continue down a path of a green change by increasing what I have listed above and not a TAX that will change the paradigm of the social system in this great country of ours.

 

[Ruby]

So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"

And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.

Explod, if Australia shut down completely, the difference it would make to our climate is miniscule - that is well accepted. The change in our climate is within normal variation anyhow.

We can do all sorts of things to make the world a better place for everyone - no-one denies that. Trying to resist normal fluctuations in climate is not one of them.

 

[white_goodman]

So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"

And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.

if you want to promote renewable clean technology, like 99% of people in this thread, do it in a way the promotes free market and isnt a form of propaganda income distribution based on faulty sciece and the academic community lining their pockets...

heres a video that i posted in the 'Labor carbon tax lie' thread

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/a-free-market-case-for-green-energy.html

also it really needs attention is the fact the heat caputred by carbon in the atmosphere is parabolic... ie the first 20ppm of co2 captures as much heat as the other 350ish ppm... ie even if we double co2 its going to have a minuscule effect on temperatures..

 

[wayneL]

So you suggest we do nothing.

This is the typical sort of straw man tactic/non sequitur of the alarmists;

"I like the German people"
"Oh, so you support what Hitler did do you?"

C'mon Plod et al, all this argumentative fallacy doesn't advance the debate one iota.