This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2376800.htm?section=justin

Then again .... the Mediterranean countries are in as much trouble as Aus it seems .
At least they are acting ....
"(plan to reduce CO2 to) 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, or by 30 per cent if other big economies join in"

 
I learned a long time ago not to argue with people who were not rational.
The same applies to people who believe, from limited reading or knowledge, that something is what they think it is.
It's akin to crossing a road because you can't see any cars, only to be hit by a plane because you really are on a runway.
If you want to close your minds to the science of climate change you won't be open to the pace of climate change that some want to simply call "weather".
Atmospheric content of CO2 is increasing at around 2 parts per million per annum, having increased over 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
More alarming in the past few years is the increase of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is around 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, and if global warming is unlocking methane there is not much we can do after the event. That's because "man" can reduce CO2 emissions, but nature is responsible for methane.
I find it amusing that some posters who pay a lot of attention to technical indicators for their trading are unwilling to accept the well mapped science that gives rise to a near certain outcome that significant and rapid climate changes are just decades away.
 
You are so on the money skink.

Armchair scientists here on the forums armed with belief (lets call it 'ignorance') that dispute what thousands of scientists around the world are in agreement about. These scientists devote their intellectual lives to studying this stuff and actually know what they are talking about.

That QANDA show that 2020 mentioned was quite interesting. I found it particularly interesting that Tim Flannery pointed out the difference between 'sceptics' and the majority of scientists agreeing about climate change. He said that we had to take notice of the good science and good science is 'peer reviewed science'. He had not seen one scrap of science disproving climate change that had been peer reviewed and I think he has some small interest in this area. If you are sceptical than you will want to believe whoever you can grasp onto to believe I guess. Goodness knows how you can be sceptical when you look at graphs of population/pollution/emissions etc over time. Seriously, can't just continue pollute and grow exponentially and expect the world to just keep chugging along with no effect.

Surely even if you are a sceptic the cost of waiting to see if your scepticism is true is far too high? Surely it is not a bad thing to reduce our emissions and pollution to what are hopefully sustainable levels?
 
Saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren is now a luxury we cannot afford. We have much greater problems here and now. I don't have to spell out what they are.

Oddly enough, drops in productivity and energy use may solve the problem anyway.
 
spot on Nash. (although I'm not sure which of skint's posts you are referring to - maybe not the one above lol )

I still believe that a sceptic / skeptic would still vote for "act anyway just in case";

and only a denialist would vote against caution.
 
How much of that observed warming is due to man-made direct heat discharge? That's highly relevant given that such heat is temporary and in no danger of running out of control (versus the CO2 argument which is largely permanent and may get out of control).
 
I just wish they'd face the reality that the solutions available are:

1. Move to 100% clean energy. That's the only way you can have ongoing development without ongonig rises in emissions. Going for a few solar panels etc doesn't fix the problem.

2. Rapid reduction in population (more rapid than could be done through natural death). We're talking about perhaps an 85% cut to the human population here folks and that won't be easy. And that's not something you'd want to do without outright proof of the need, now is it?

My preference is option 1 for pure self interested reasons - I'd rather not be shot or otherwise killed anytime soon.

Trouble is, the green mafia will fight 100% clean energy to the bitter end - that's their track record so far be it carbon capture, hydro, nuclear or any other technology that actually offers a solution. We're not going to 100% clean energy with solar and wind alone - it just doesn't work with the technology we have.

Most politicians who claim to want action have about as much credibility as if a fast food company started a war on obesity. They just won't support the things necessary to achieve what it is they claim to want. That's why the problem, assuming it exists, won't be fixed anytime soon.
 

Look where following computer models got us in the financial system where 1000's of scientists were in agreement about risk (or lack thereof). The climate is just as complex as the financial system and both are unable to be modelled to any degree of accuracy. I suspect that scientists in both fields have preconceived ideas and choose models that come out with the results they want (eg increased CO2 equals catastrophic climate change, sub-prime risks are low) and discard the ones that do not regardless of accuracy to the real world. These models are highly sensitive to initial inputs and it's easy to keeping choosing assumptions and initial inputs until you get the outcome you want.
 
freddy2 said:
Look where following computer models got us in the financial system where 1000's of scientists were in agreement about risk (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...
I don't recall too many scientists spouting off about their financial models, but there certainly were many well balanced market commentators that foresaw the present carnage well ahead of it happening.
In fact one of the threads opens with a piece in April last year that recounts a fund manager quitting equities in advance of a severe and imminent correction.
Ross Garnaut released his report today. The cost of inaction is now documented should we take that path.
 
Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.
 
wayneL said:
Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.
Click to expand...

Both ignore when their models don't match reality.

Both resort to ad hominen attacks instead of debating the skeptics arguments.
 
ABC had a TV show tonight ...Two in the Top End

Tim Flannery and John Doyle continue their unique adventure investigating Australia's northern frontier. Ploughing through sodden roads the pair finally make it to Darwin, the big smoke of the north
Click to expand...
Great wits both of em - Prof Flannery of course Aussie of the Year last year and passionate about AGW/CC. He's the one that has the "rescue plan" in a file in his top drawer.

His qualifications to comment on Climate (and Paleontology) are pretty impressive.- written books about it / them - shouldn't be ignored I wouldn't have thought

:topic PS There was a humourous moment there ... A Croc breeder discussing with Doyle ( Rampaging Roy Slaven) - "croc meat is really interesting - if you feed em chicken , then it tastes like chicken ... and if you feed em fish, then it tastes like fish" ....

Doyle asks with a grin "and if you feed em croc?"
"like croc"
- "and what does etc" ... lol
 

Good thread GG!

The world is cooling not heating. It's cyclical and normal for climate to change or is that weather to change?
 
This would be the Flannery who thinks we should pump SO2 into the atmosphere and fill our skies with chemtrails?

I'm tempted to go all ad hominem on the professor, but there's no need really; he's doing a great job of destroying his cred all by himself.
 
wayneL said:
Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to add the science that supports a contrary view.
I will agree that the earth has undergone massive swings in climate between ice ages. Except for climate events likely triggered by volcanic ash in the atmosphere, the time cycles of these changes are not measured in decades but in hundreds or thousands of years.
 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=294922

As I said elsewhere, whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur, he still has 17% of the people to convince there's even a problem. If they refuse to listen, then ...

yes it may get to the point of resorting to "a manmade volcano" to (help) correct things.

Wayne, there must be a dozen posts around here where you've implied that there was no GW whatsoever, let alone AGW. I still don't understand your arguments in favour of doing nothing about CO2 (then again you once posted that it was ok to act there as well)

I personally believe in Suzuki's opinion that all politicians who ignore the threat of AGW/CC should be held legally responsible. You agree with Suzuki when it suits you, but disagree with him when it doesn't.

Ever heard of the mountain pine beetle?
This is what he can do - ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
 
There is no AGW.

There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.

There is natural Climate Change on a macro scale. There is also anthropogenic climate change on a regional scale due to deforestation, heat sink effects of cities etc.

What the protagonists like to do is highlight the warming bits while disregarding the cooling bits. That's not science. That's bullsh!t.

But to once again reiterate, as a sustainablie (that word we coined elsewhere), I favour reduction in all unsustainable practices. That includes the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. I will again reiterate, my personal contribution (or decontribution if you like) is massively in excess of IPCC gravy trane-ers and I am confident in excess of most AGW whingers and whiners. I take a holistic view as detailed dozens of times. CO2 is the least of our problems.

As Smurf has repeatedly pointed out we must reduce energy AND resource consumption; I agree with that, but who's doing it? Not you lot.

It is action that counts, not words.

So the IPCC can take there BS model that hasn't even proceeded past hypothesis stage and take it straight to hell along with their corrupt science and their monumental hypocrisy. Leave the saving of the planet to those of us who actually do something (less actually).

Idiots like Flannery are the ones that should be in gaol, and as far as David Suzuki goes, he's a hypocrite of the worst order. If he thinks politicians should be locked up, then IPCC delegates should be executed for not practicing what they preach, starting with that obscene, fat, hypocritical energy guzzling, carbon footprint giant, Al Bore.

They are intellectual prostitutes who do not deserve a cent of the $billions of public money they are scamming from the poor overtaxed public.
 
It is ridiculous to try and avoid the fact that higher CO2 levels are consistent with higher average temperatures. The data shows it, not some model of the future, but actual measurements taken from ice cores.

If this is the case, how can anyone claim that if we continue to let CO2 levels rise we will not have any effect on temperature

Come on, this is not a political game we are talking about here, it is a fact of life on this planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...