Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Stormin_Norman said:
im thinking of heading over to a science board to get an opinion on the stability of the australian housing market.
Click to expand...
I'm sure many scientists would own houses so that may be a good thing to do. It is a good thing to not fall into the trap of believing in epistemic arrogance.
Let us know what you hear from them.
Cheers..
 
rederob said:
Cut out the the crap and get involved in some reasoned debate.
Posting more and more articles from the mainstream media adds nothing to this thread.
However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.

Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.

ps. an ad hominem insult is an attack on you, personally. I am more concerned with the material you put up, which is mostly rubbish. If you want to insinuate an extension to yourself, that's your call. I haven't met you, I don't know you. I simply read your posts.
Click to expand...

Rob,

I must point out that "reasoned" debate includes the admission of reasonable points from your opposition, otherwise it becomes a polarized sh!tfight.

So far you have shown no capability of such reason, choosing to refute all sensible evidence countering your viewpoint. It seems reason is only that which agrees with your narrow and indoctrinated view.

I fully accept the desirability of having the debate on AGW. Unfortunately, when you alarmists have petulantly closed the door on any dissenting science, it is no longer a discussion and polarization occurs. In fact, it disqualifies itself as true science.

This is an extreme negative and the reason you are losing the public on this issue.

In the meantime, real (and junk) science continues with a case being made for a number of scenarios. In other words, there is no consensus, the science is not settled, AGW remains as hypothesis, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, and Climate Change has become heavily politicized.

If you were prepared to concede the above five points, then we may have the possibility of a reasonable discussion. It's up to you.
 
rederob said:
In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans. The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.
Antarctica is a land mass covered with massive ice sheets. The Arctic is just water and ice - you plant a flag on the ocean floor when you reach the north pole!
The Arctic tends to act as a barometer of change as its geography and climatology "amplifies" weather events. However, unless a similar trend (albeit latent) is shown to correspondingly affect Antarctica we can hardly talk about "global climate change".
The issue on manmade climate change is incidental to the above. How we measure it is clearly debatable.
Click to expand...
Hence the uphill battle of proving versus disproving.
 
2020hindsight said:
btw snake
read Flannery's book, the Weather Makers - or read any flaming book for that matter. I'd be interested to see evidence that you've researched this in the slightest.

That invitation goes for Wayne as well - especially as he proclaims an interest in saving wildlife. Read about the number of species of critters that have died / become extinct and are gonna die in the next 50 years or so. :2twocents
Click to expand...
Blunders by governments and scientists are common and the role is to prove what is not disprovable. It is a big hill to climb.

Cheers..
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Explod,

What are you saying this actually means?
Click to expand...


In the past the ice remained inert. In more recent times the ice has begun to melt (a change) and is therefore absorbing heat which inturn is cooling the planet down. Of course the more heat the ice absorbs the more it is going to melt till no more ice. When there is no more ice to cool the warming it is going to get very hot. So teach you Grandchilden, (better make that children) to run high into the hills to cool down and avoid the flood.

Talking of your surveys above. Socialogists will tell you that a 10% change of attitude is all that is required to bring about a total change in that direction. With climate change we a well past that and there is plenty of anectotal to show that it is all just quetly but surely happening. It is why you of the traditional power lobby are so desperate with your unqualified pure crappola
 
wayneL said:
Rob,

I must point out that "reasoned" debate includes the admission of reasonable points from your opposition, otherwise it becomes a polarized sh!tfight.

So far you have shown no capability of such reason, choosing to refute all sensible evidence countering your viewpoint. It seems reason is only that which agrees with your narrow and indoctrinated view.

I fully accept the desirability of having the debate on AGW. Unfortunately, when you alarmists have petulantly closed the door on any dissenting science, it is no longer a discussion and polarization occurs. In fact, it disqualifies itself as true science.

This is an extreme negative and the reason you are losing the public on this issue.

In the meantime, real (and junk) science continues with a case being made for a number of scenarios. In other words, there is no consensus, the science is not settled, AGW remains as hypothesis, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, and Climate Change has become heavily politicized.

If you were prepared to concede the above five points, then we may have the possibility of a reasonable discussion. It's up to you.
Click to expand...
I consider the temperature changes over the past 150 to be within the bounds of "natural" influences.
I know man has impacted on emissions in many areas, and would consider there is a reasonable chance that his impact has a measurable effect.
I understand the principle of "forcing".
I realise that climate models will do nothing more than "model", based on inputs, their parameters and interrelationships: I don't expect they will ever accurately predict climate as the dynamics of weather has too many variables. Models, nevertheless, can serve a useful purpose in assisting us better understand the complexities of the world.
I have certainly "questioned" many of your links, and sought subsequent defences from you.
I don't expect any of us here are equipped to understand the complexities of the science that underpins the debate at large.
However, there many sites that give us a lay understanding of what's what, and why.
I'm not sure what "label" you want to put on me: I don't ascribe to the Gore camp, and am not "alarmed" (yet) at the state of our global climate. My concern if the science proves right relates to our lack of knowledge about how long it will take for CO2 rates to diminish.
In the meantime there is a growing body of evidence that, with more, and more recent data, suggests man influence has created a pace of climate change that may be unprecedented (except for cataclysmic events, such as volcanic eruptions).
On the other hand, there are some scientists that offer a contrary view. I am by nature contrarian, and therefore not inclined to swallow mainstream thought. In examining the contrary evidence to date I have found some appalling "science", and an incredible amount of material that purports "peer review" when none exists.
I might have a head start on some, having followed climate change issues for over 30 years.
I would dearly love for someone - anyone - to show that the earth is again cooling, and their material was credible. Indeed, I'd be happy for the status quo to be proven.
Do that for me, Wayne.
 
explod said:
In the past the ice remained inert. In more recent times the ice has begun to melt (a change) and is therefore absorbing heat which inturn is cooling the planet down. Of course the more heat the ice absorbs the more it is going to melt till no more ice. When there is no more ice to cool the warming it is going to get very hot. So teach you Grandchilden, (better make that children) to run high into the hills to cool down and avoid the flood.

Talking of your surveys above. Socialogists will tell you that a 10% change of attitude is all that is required to bring about a total change in that direction. With climate change we a well past that and there is plenty of anectotal to show that it is all just quetly but surely happening. It is why you of the traditional power lobby are so desperate with your unqualified pure crappola
Click to expand...
What are you saying this actually means?
 
Snake - questions for you.
On a related matter - namely action on man's effect on climate:-

1. Did man cause the hole in the ozone layer?
2. When we acted against CFC's was it a good thing?
3. Were denialists complaining to the end?
4. Were we just lucky that it wasn't bromine we were causing - which could have been hundreds of times worse?
 
rederob said:
Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.
Click to expand...

snake said:
Impossible. The universe is infinite and the boundaries are not known. Mistakes will continue to be made so proving will be harder than disproving.
Click to expand...
While you're at it snake ,
What are you saying that quote of yours actually means?
 
2020hindsight said:
smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong.

We need to reduce the rate of extraction of coal etc, not accelerate it to the fastest rate we are physically capable of ( as you imply)
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that:

Oil looks to have peaked already

Gas production seems likely to rise for another 20 years or so, but not rapidly enough to offset declining oil production beyond the next few years.

That leaves coal as the only realistic source of sufficient CO2 to meet the emissions growth assumed in virtually all climate change modelling.

In short, we'd need truly massive growth in coal use to lead to the "business as usual" scenarios for CO2 emissions that many accept as given in a scenario of diminishing emissions from oil and gas.

So what I'm saying is that there's very little prospect of emissions rising to the point used in most of the models. Rise maybe, but not as high as is being assumed. Inability to get the stuff out of the ground seems likely to make sure of that whether we care about the CO2 issue or not.
 
Smurf1976 said:
What I'm saying is that:

Oil looks to have peaked already

Gas production seems likely to rise for another 20 years or so, but not rapidly enough to offset declining oil production beyond the next few years.

That leaves coal as the only realistic source of sufficient CO2 to meet the emissions growth assumed in virtually all climate change modelling.

In short, we'd need truly massive growth in coal use to lead to the "business as usual" scenarios for CO2 emissions that many accept as given in a scenario of diminishing emissions from oil and gas.

So what I'm saying is that there's very little prospect of emissions rising to the point used in most of the models. Rise maybe, but not as high as is being assumed. Inability to get the stuff out of the ground seems likely to make sure of that whether we care about the CO2 issue or not.
Click to expand...
so smurf, are you saying ...
"don't worry , be happy"
"we just can't take it out fast enough to be a problem"?
 
2020hindsight said:
so smurf, are you saying ...
"don't worry , be happy"
"we just can't take it out fast enough to be a problem"?
Click to expand...
Not quite...

What I'm saying is that we have non-CO2 problems (maintaining an energy supply) due to the oil and then gas situation. A by-product of this is that it will limit our CO2 emissions.

That suggests that we need more focus on the overall energy problem and that whilst CO2 may be important, the worst case scenarios or even business as usual are unlikely outcomes. We might still have a problem, but not one as serious as most projections of future CO2 emissions would lead one to assume.

It's a bit like pondering whether or not the party across the road is getting out of hand. At this rate, it seems there will be a riot within the hour. But then you find they've just run out of everything top shelf, are running very low on full stength beer but still have plenty of light beer that's been sitting in the sun. All the bottle shops are shut and whilst they have a fridge to cool the beer, they don't have a freezer to do it quickly.

So you might still have a problem with drunks across the road, and it may still be enough to warrant some action, but your worst fears of riots in the street won't be realised. All they've got left is lower grade alcohol and they can't get it into themselves sufficiently fast to get drunk enough to cause that much trouble.

The situation with fossil fuels is rather similar to that alcohol analogy. Still quite a bit of it, but it's lower grade and much harder to get at which is very likely to stop us using as much as we otherwise would. Those assuming major increases in CO2 emissions are missing that point.
 
btw smurf,
I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ... just as nuclear batteships do for instance. :2twocents
 
explod said:
Crap or sh-t for short.

Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.
Click to expand...

explod

You may have noticed that we're all trying to be a bit nicer to each other, I t would help if you did the same.

Cheers
 
lighthouseAP_1000x667.jpg


global.jpg


Since Before New Years eve, the temperature here in Cheltenham has not been above one degree. There has been snow on the ground for the last three days, Pittville lake has frozen over and kids have built a snowman on the ice right in the middle.

...and it is exceptionally beautiful, I love it. Walking through the regency buildings with snow everywhere is a sight to behold. :)

Now that is just a comment on the weather, so please no assaults or inferences.

However, it is undeniable that all over the world, countries are experiencing cold weather not experienced for decades. The proposition that it is caused by the melting ice cap doesn't hold water because arctic ice has increased markedly over the low point of two seasons ago. I have posted sat images demonstrating this.

What has changed is solar output. Sunspot activity is at a low point "eerily calm" according to scientists.

This is undoubtedly the cause of the recent cold spell and further conclusions may be reached from this.

DYOR
 
2020hindsight said:
btw smurf,
I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ... just as nuclear batteships do for instance. :2twocents
Click to expand...
smurf, I concede they (nuclear plants) are more expensive / less efficient without hydro in parallel. - Then again if hydro is not feasible, - land just isn't available for instance - then you just have nuclear / stand alone, and/or in conjunction with other cleaner power. (or reduced amount of dirty power)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top