Climate change another name for Weather

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Highly unlikely as in the bottom right hand corner of the picture (of light refraction into colour spectrum) is the © AP which is Associated Press.

Actually AP are pretty harsh on copyright with their articles by bloggers. Using their photos I don't know about.
Are you saying it is not a real effect but a manufactured effect?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Are you saying it is not a real effect but a manufactured effect?

Nay s.p.

Q... Do you see your thoughts as abstract dominative?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Nay s.p.

Q... Do you see your thoughts as abstract dominative?

Only when there are no spaces after full stops, or periods as the US calls them.

 

[explod]

Agreed.

But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters.

If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well.

Fretting about co2 emissions exclusively will do absolutely nothing for your , or anyone else's grandchildren.

And that's a fact Jack.

We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect. Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference. Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.

 

[numbercruncher]

Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

You will all eventually run out of Air to breathe at the rate humanity is going .....

Just keep pumping out carbon dioxide and cutting down forests and we should be able to extinct the problem

 

[OzWaveGuy]

We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect. Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference. Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.

Agreed. But I doubt that moving wealth from the middle class to the rich via a Carbon Tax would make a difference - unless your one of the receivers of the wealth

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect. Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference. Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.

The destruction of forests in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil are a big cause for concern.

By creating a religion and then creating a TAX to tax a nation with when the rest of the world is doing nothing is a little silly.

Clean up the oceans, the soil and prevent loss of forest. These are the immediate threats.

The Earth's atmospheric pressure is not heavy enough for heating to continue unabated. It is time the other scientists were given their right to be published.

 

[numbercruncher]

Yes less forests is less oxygen @

Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained.

The developing worlds Coal burning might be enough to finish us off if enough of them put up Coal burning power stations huh ?

 

[Smurf1976]

We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect. Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference. Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.

And the biggest criminal is... Constant Growth!

Yep, let's move to an economic model where the entire concept of "economic growth" is something only found in history books. Ultimately, if we maintain even 0.1% annual growth then we'll eventually consume the entire planet.

Now it's oil, next it's CO2, then it's something else. CO2 is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. If we fix (or ignore) the CO2 issue but continue the notion of constant growth on a finite planet then we'll simply hit some other limit before long.

In all seriousness, I'd suggest a target GDP change of -2% per annum with tough measures taken should "growth" threaten to occur even briefly. That's the only way we'll fix the CO2 without simply ending up in some other (likely worse) situation.

Odds of that happening? In practice, zero. We're going to burn all we can get until either we end up cooked or run out of things to burn. That's what humans do with practically everything. Sad maybe, but that's my conclusion having been considering this issue since the 1980's.

It would have been 15 years or so until I finally accepted that no real action would actually be taken unless the banking system completely collapsed first and on a scale that all attempts to revive it were abandoned. Then we need an entire new financial system to which "growth" is an irrelevant concept since it's neither required nor likely to happen. That's a massive change from the present system which knows only two things - constant growth or outright collapse.

I'm sure most will reach that conclusion given enough time (it being still a fairly new issue for some).

 

[2020hindsight]

If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well.

Fretting about co2 emissions exclusively will do absolutely nothing for your , or anyone else's grandchildren.

And that's a fact Jack.

And the other fact is that those two things work together - in tandem.

i.e. concentrate of the pollution , the CO2 comes down

Conversely and equally, concentrate on the CO2, the pollution comes down (and the forests are protected, etc)

Seems it's the coldest year in yonks.

Where I live, we had snow in both October and November. On Sunday, there was frost on the ground ALL DAY; the ground in some places frozen solid.

Depends what you read - this says it's the worst ice in Gulf of Finland in 300 years

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,540694,00.html

Hundreds of Baby Seals Could Starve to Death
03/11/2008

Rising temperatures could spell disaster for seals living in the Baltic Sea in northern Europe. An environment group is warning that hundreds of baby seals are now facing a painful death.

"The situation is dramatic," Cathrin Münster, of the WWF's Baltic office, warned Monday in a statement. "It could turn out that not one of the seal babies born in the last few weeks will survive."

Seal mothers usually create deep burrows in the snow to protect their young. With those burrows now melting too early, the young pups are forced into the icy waters before they have built up protective layers of fat. They are also too young to defend themselves against predators like foxes and eagles

According to the WWF, worst affected are seals on the south-west coast of Finland, in the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga. The region has experienced a winter with the least ice formation for 300 years, according to the German Maritime and Hydrographic Agency.

In a normal winter, the agency says, the Gulf of Bothnia, which lies between Finland and Sweden, is completely covered by ice between the end of February to mid-March. But this winter ice only formed in the northern parts of the gulf and in patches in the south.

According to the WWF, there are only 7,000 to 10,000 seals in the Baltic Sea today, which is why they have been placed on an international list of endangered species. At the start of the 20th century, the group says, there were about 180,000 seals in the area, but hunting and environmental degradation have drastically cut their numbers.

Seems the Gulf of Finland is Finnish
Also Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Riga.

 

[2020hindsight]

The destruction of forests in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil are a big cause for concern.

By creating a religion and then creating a TAX to tax a nation with when the rest of the world is doing nothing is a little silly.

Clean up the oceans, the soil and prevent loss of forest. These are the immediate threats.

The Earth's atmospheric pressure is not heavy enough for heating to continue unabated. It is time the other scientists were given their right to be published.

Pleased to see you agree with the principles of Carbon Trading, Snake - credits for leaving carbon standing vertical for instance.

 

[2020hindsight]

In all seriousness, I'd suggest a target GDP change of -2% per annum with tough measures taken should "growth" threaten to occur even briefly. That's the only way we'll fix the CO2 without simply ending up in some other (likely worse) situation.

Odds of that happening? In practice, zero. We're going to burn all we can get until either we end up cooked or run out of things to burn. That's what humans do with practically everything. Sad maybe, but that's my conclusion having been considering this issue since the 1980's.

See Smurf - you're MORE pessimistic than IPCC recommendations - They say start immediately, reduce CO2 by 1.9% per annum - and you'll limit the temp growth to 2degC by 2100degC.

Of course if you can reduce by more then all the better.

no real action would actually be taken unless the banking system completely collapsed first and on a scale that all attempts to revive it were abandoned. Then we need an entire new financial system to which "growth" is an irrelevant concept since it's neither required nor likely to happen

I guess we are half way there at the moment

 

[2020hindsight]

1. I think it is interesting to note that aprrox 12,000 yrs ago, the climate changed from Ice Age, and heated up to an estimated average up to 4 degrees hotter than today, ( over several thousand years) according to info quoted in a book i read by Jared Diamond.

2. It has been postulated ... about 8000 yrs ago, leading to widespread great flooding mythology, such as Noahs Ark... etc.
...

3. IMO, greenhouse gases, human factors, are certainly impacting on this natural process, just no one can say exactly how much.

4. One thing i think can be said for certain is that sea levels are rising, and will continue to rise,

5. So those super beachfront locations like Wamberal, Collaroy ( and Bangladesh) are going to be worth less than they are now.

6. Fortunately (for me), my place is atop a high cliff

awg
1. Here's the graph of global temp - with the simple addition at the end of what would happen if the IPCC could talk us into restricting temp increase by 2100 to 2 degC. (There are other scenarios where we stuff around like old women and do buga all - and then the temp increase could be 3 or even 6 degC increase). You'll see that there is nothing like what weve had in the last 10K years - and incidentally, many say it is hotter now (albeit in a state of change and not fully realised yet - a "paper debt" at this stage) - than it has been for a million years) - AND THAT'S TODAY ! - BEFORE THOSE (HYPOTHETICAL) INCREASES AT THE END OF THE GRAPH.

2. mmm lol - Noah's ArK? lol

3, 4, 5, agreed

6. _ lol - so you think that millions of environmental refugees won't impinge on you provided you (and your grandkids) like on a hill

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[wayneL]

New Scientist -- LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Shills

 

[wayneL]

We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect. Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference. Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.

Yeah but no but yeah but no. Certainly reduce reliance on fossil fuels because of:

* Other nasty pollutants that are intrinsic with them. (sulfur, non-co2 carbon particles etc)
* Finite supply
* Energy security issues
etc

But once again, the pure co2 factor in CC is a non-issue.

 

[basilio]

But once again, the pure co2 factor in CC is a non-issue.

Is as simple as that Wayne isn't it? Simply deny that CO2 is a major factor in climate change. It appears that the basis of your whole view on the wrongness of the vast majority of climate scientists conclusion is a simple assertion.

Trouble is your assertion is simply and demonstrably wrong. Simple science experiments in school demonstrate the capacity of extra CO2 to capture warmth.

Scientists for at least 150 years have understood how CO2 is responsible for warming the atmosphere. Of course there are other factors involved in climate change on earth and we can see their effects over time. But the critical issue facing us is that we have injected a huge extra amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years and that this is rapidly warming the planet. Full stop. End of earth as we know it.

For those who would like to see a simple experiment which demonstrates the warming effect of CO2 check out

http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm

There is a particularly excellent history study on the evolving knowledge of scientists on CO2. It's an interesting and pretty easy read. (But it is long. )

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

[2020hindsight]

New Scientist -- LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Shills

such a load of bs there wayne

 

[basilio]

I was just reading that quite long chapter on how scientists came to understand how CO2 warms the atmosphere.

It is really very interesting. The writer is a physicist who also studies historical science. For most members of the forum who don't have an extensive science background (and that includes me), I think you will find it fascinating to see the dead ends, errors and so on that have been part of the understanding we have now.

And it disappoints me that on an issue that will decide whether we live or die as a species our public discussion can be based on errors of fact and easily rectified misunderstandings.

Cheers

 

[Wysiwyg]

For those who would like to see a simple experiment which demonstrates the warming effect of CO2 check out

http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm

So CO2 is proven to heat up and hold heat longer than air.Fact.

Imagine trying to reverse the effect once (now?) it started, the whole (sane) earth population would band together to correct the imbalance.Ahh yes, the final frontier.Maybe peace and harmony among all (sane) humans for the first time ever with agreement on something bigger than our ego`s.

After all, take away the ego-self and we have a balanced functional productive individual of utmost benefit to the tribe.

 

[2020hindsight]

And it disappoints me that on an issue that will decide whether we live or die as a species our public discussion can be based on errors of fact and easily rectified misunderstandings.:banghead

lol well said
" " indeed

PS Wayne has already broken down 10 brick walls that way -
but hopefully he hasn't damaged the bricks - and they'll be able to rebuild them after he's shuffled off - and we've come to serious terms with this problem