Resisting Climate Hysteria

[spooly74]

We are as little a 25 to 30 years away from nuclear fusion power plants, and much sooner if decent funding was allocated. Fusion power will be i) almost limitless ii) requiriing only miniscule material inputs and iii) clean.

Why don't the AGW/clean technology crowd ever mention this, why are they pushing us down the blind alley of solar and geothermal wishful thinking.

Because they and the general populace are more afraid of anything with Nuclear in the title than they are of global warming.

 

[rumpole]

We are as little a 25 to 30 years away from nuclear fusion power plants,

We have been 20 years away from fusion for the last 50 years.

I hope they can get it to work, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Proven technologies are already here. If you want a bit of speculative technology , look at Thorium powered fast breeder reactors.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

For a more indepth read on how Climate Science has evolved check out the following reference.

So many different sets of information, research, models and analysis to sharpen up the current understandings.

Parts 1 and 2 are also very interesting reads.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-3.html

Still weaving and ducking around the elephant in the room there Basilio? Just can't leave the "scientific" John Cook blog alone huh?

Should I put down the -4 in Canberra this morning as an extreme weather event for May and be hysterically alarmed and create fault with a trace gas? Can't wait for that 5 degrees of warming, maybe I could enjoy at least a 1 degree in May.

Shouldn't be too long, basilio's couch friends predict the Artic will be ice free in just a few more months... These charts show "massive" decline and are about to flatline at zero right Basilio? Perhaps the Cook blog will let us all know when there's no ice left so we can get in front of everyone else who plan to holiday in the Antarctic.

Save me a seat.

 

[joea]

Interesting.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../and_then_i_saw_the_facts_now_im_no_believer/

joea

 

[Smurf1976]

Because they and the general populace are more afraid of anything with Nuclear in the title than they are of global warming.

CO2 might be a significant risk to the natural environment.

Nuclear power based on uranium, the only form of commercial nuclear power in use and on which the public can be expected to form an opinion, is a significant risk to the natural environment.

Given the choice, it's not surprising that people would rather something that "might" be a problem than something which "is" a problem.

 

[Logique]

...Proven technologies are already here...

Green dissembling Rumpole. Name one Greens-approved 'proven' technology capable of providing baseload power generation, for industry, for the human journey into deep space.

Take another look, fusion power is an advanced scientific project. It's later than you think. If only it were funded adequately, fusion would provide baseload power, and soon. Unless that's a problem?

 

[DB008]

Just saw this on BBC

Arctic melt releasing ancient methane

Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.

The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this ancient gas could have a significant impact on climate change.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability.

There are many sources of the gas around the world, some natural and some man-made, such as landfill waste disposal sites and farm animals.

Tracking methane to these various sources is not easy.

But the researchers on the new Arctic project, led by Katey Walter Anthony from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF), were able to identify long-stored gas by the ratio of different isotopes of carbon in the methane molecules.

 

[cynic]

Have those researchers in the Arctic adjusted their readings to account for the methane produced by their own flatulence?

If so could somebody describe the methods, and accompanying rectal instrumentation, employed so that I may verify the accuracy of their findings/assertions.

 

[rumpole]

Green dissembling Rumpole. Name one Greens-approved 'proven' technology capable of providing baseload power generation, for industry, for the human journey into deep space.

Take another look, fusion power is an advanced scientific project. It's later than you think. If only it were funded adequately, fusion would provide baseload power, and soon. Unless that's a problem?

It's not a problem for me, I said I hope they can get it to work...

 

[MrBurns]

Thee a whole lot of reports such as this getting about now, co incidentally just prior to everyones cash being theived again by Gillard.
This ones by "an expert" by jove we better sit up and take notice after all he's an EXPERT

Country towns told to brace for climate change

A population expert says the effects of climate change will not necessarily decimate rural communities if the right plans are laid.

Professor Graeme Hugo is the director of the new Population and Migration Research Centre at the University of Adelaide.

He says annual rainfall is already declining in south-eastern parts of the country but says rural communities can survive if governments start preparing now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-21/climate-change-regional-communities/4024218

 

[wayneL]

Just saw this on BBC

Arctic melt releasing ancient methane

Link please.

Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source

 

[sails]

Link please.

Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source

Here's one link found via google: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

 

[DB008]

Link please.

Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source

Sorry Wayne, l must of deleted it when l edited my post.
Sails has it.

If not, click here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

 

[explod]

Link please.

Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source

It does. The earth has moved its axis a few times since inception.

All in "The Sixth Extinction" really should get it out and have a read Wayne.

 

[wayneL]

It does. The earth has moved its axis a few times since inception.

All in "The Sixth Extinction" really should get it out and have a read Wayne.

You are claiming that atmospheric methane persists in the atmosphere long eniugh to still be hanging around since axis shifts?

Better check your science there. I'm not a chemist, but I believe methane breaks down to other molecules relatively quickly.

 

[wayneL]

Interesting headline out of Russia:

Russische Wissenschaftler melden: Globale Erwärmung geht zu Ende!

Die globale Erwärmung geht zu Ende: In den nächsten Jahren wird die Temperatur auf dem ganzen Planeten fallen, wenn auch die Abkühlung einen schonenden Charakter haben wird. Diesen Schluss zogen die russischen Wissenschaftler aus der Physikuniversität der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Der Prozess des allgemeinen Temperaturrückgangs hat laut Forschung bereits begonnen. Nach einer Spitze im Jahre 2005 ging nun die durchschnittliche Temperatur auf der Erde um 0,3 Grad auf das Niveau der 1996-1997er Jahre zurück.

Laut den Wissenschaftlern werden die globalen Temperaturen bis 2015 um weitere 0,15 Grad sinken, was dem Klima der früheren 1980er Jahre entsprechen würde.

or

Global warming is coming to an end: In the coming years the temperature over the entire planet will fall and the cooling will provide a character of relief. This is the conclusion reached by Russian scientists from the Physics University of the Russian Academy of Science.

The process of a general temperature decrease has already begun, according to the research. After having peaked in 2005, the average temperature on Earth is now returning to the level of the 1996-1997 years, 0.3 °C lower.

According to the scientists, global temperatures will fall another 0.15 °C by 2015, which corresponds to the climate of the early 1980s.”

Uncited, but interesting

 

[macca]

In Daily Telegraph Monday, an article drawing attention to the fact that throughout the world mankind is pumping water back out of the ground onto the surface, which in turn runs down eventually, into the sea.

Not sure how a CO2 tax will fix this

<<SEA levels are indeed rising - but is the draining of water on land, not climate change, the main culprit? >>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-for-rising-seas/story-e6freuy9-1226361545596

 

[sails]

...Not sure how a CO2 tax will fix this ...

Will it even actually reduce co2 with it's money-go-round?

We pay more for our electricity so money can be sent to tree farms in the likes of Uganda where poor African people have been evicted from their land so British businesses can buy it up to plant trees?

EU, World Bank Brutalize Africans for “Carbon Credits”

So, the extra money we pay in power (plus the massive compounding effect which may result in prices going up all over the place) will go to pay people with trees?

And, by paying someone else on the other side of the world for our tiny percentage of co2 emissions at massive cost to Australia, how is this supposed to reduce our co2 emissions? Presumably to make us so poor we can no longer afford it - but then many are to be compensated, so they will carry on regardless.

Australia's global emission of co2 is around 1.3% - and of that only a tiny percentage is man made. It seems it is nothing but an excuse to take money from hard working Aussies.

And the UN to take 10% of all carbon tax raised? See video below where Gillard does not refute it.

Massive money scam is what comes to mind with very little, if any, help to the environment.

 

[Smurf1976]

<<SEA levels are indeed rising - but is the draining of water on land, not climate change, the main culprit? >>

I've long thought this but have been ridiculed for suggesting it in the past.

Draining of underground aquifers is one source. Extraction of oil and gas also brings up water. Land use change also in many cases liberates water to the atmosphere and ultimately to the oceans.

The huge amounts of water released from fossil fuel combustion (as distinct from water directly flowing from oil and gas fields) is another - Victoria's coal-fired power stations alone dump 40 billion litres of it into the air each year (which then falls as rain and ends up in the oceans). That's not water taken from rivers, it's "new" water that was previously locked up in coal. Scale that up globally and it's rather a lot I would think.

Now what about all the solid things dumped into the ocean over the years? Go to any significant coastal city and you'll find at least some amount of reclaimed land, in some cases lots of it. Now add in the dumping of everything from ships to silt to tailings to jarosite into the oceans over the years and it's an awful lot of stuff that has been added.

Remember what happens to the water level when you get in the bath? The same applies to the oceans - add more land, ships, soil industrial waste or whatever and it's going to displace and equal mass of water. That means the sea level goes up.

Man does all sorts of things which add directly to sea levels independently of any warming-related rise.

About the only thing we've done which works in the opposite direction is building large dams. Every drop of water in practically every dam is water that would otherwise be in the oceans.

 

[brty]

I am one who about a hundred pages ago in this thread was identified as a 'denier' yet I have always been a sceptic, of both sides of the debate.

Clear science shows that the increase in CO2 levels will increase heat absorbtion in a greenhouse, like wise for other gasses.

We have had a period of a solar minimum with extreme length, history shows that temperatures should be lower because of it, yet they are not. The only conclusion I can draw is that something is keeping temperatures up. This is in the favour of the CO2 camp.

My overall opinion is that something is definately changing in the climate (the flowers on the fruit trees around here have been blossoming on average earlier over the last 30 years), yet so many want to deny anything is happening other than weather.

Overall when the jury is fully in beyond any doubt, it will be too late to do anything meaningfull, it probably already is.

We as humans must adapt to whatever the climate throws at us, we know it is always changing from history. Anyone who thinks it will remain the same in the future has a poor understanding of history. So the question is warmer with higher seas, or colder with lower seas for the future?

Evidence seems to be pointing to a warmer future, we must adapt.

PS There is no evidence that stopping all CO2 emmisions will do anything to prevent climate change, not that there is any chance of that happening.