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
How dare you, or anyone, question the Climate Change religion?

I wonder if the CSIRO will now end up like well known environmentalist David Bellamy who has been effectively silenced for his disagreement with the Climate Change crowd.

Overall, I think that climate change as an issue (as opposed to the scientific aspects of it) went parabolic just like the commodities markets. From a scientific perspective, climate is something us humans ought to be interested in and ought to be putting a proper research effort into given the significance of it.

But when it came to the point that even the average hair dresser was getting worried about the carbon footprint of their salon and everyone from politicians to school kids were saying that we must take drastic measures now regardless of the consequences, well that says it all really. Science had given way to mass hysteria in exactly the same way as rational investment gives way to the greater fool during a financial bubble.

Bottom line is if those calling for panic get their way, then the environmental costs will be huge. Solarise, wind farm everything we can no matter what the cost (financial, aesthetic, environmental), dam the lot and nuke the rest. That's what would happen in practice. If there's a hill, put a turbine on it. If there's a roof, put a solar panel on it. If there's a river, dam it. And nuke plants everywhere to supply the other 80%.

Don't panic. Think instead. Yes we do need to stop using fossil fuels for all sorts of reasons from acid rain to outright war. But I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it has to happen yesterday. Do it gradually, develop the technologies such as hot dry rocks and solar towers, and then we can cut CO2 without sending every other aspect of the environment and the economy straight to hell.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
.... Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.

Does anyone have a copy of the paper?

... I meant a copy of the CSIRO paper.
Click to expand...

Maybe this one ?

They (CSIRO etc) are not denying Global warming, nor greenhouse effect, nor intensifying winds, nor that the Southern Ocean has become warmer and fresher since the 1960's . Just that the take up of carbon in the ocean hasn't changed much .

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20082611-18489.html

Looks like your presumption that it "debunks" AGW is pretty much debunked.
 
Thanks for the link to the paper 2020 mate.

You warmeners are starting to sound like godbotherers.

When was anyone able to predict the future as you guys are trying to do.
:error:

gg
 
Climate change is indeed another name for Weather (or rather long term weather change)

Climate is to weather as locust is to locust plague.

So gg, do you check with the weather bureau's forecast before you go fishing at sea?

In the old days, you looked at the barometer - falling pressure = storms etc.

These days they are pretty accurate out a few days - and indeed ( with El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index etc) they are getting pretty good for yearly trends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation

PS This one espouses/reinforces the direct link between sea temp and hurricane intensity ...


gg said:
You warmeners are starting to sound like godbotherers.
Click to expand...
lol - and you denialists are starting to sound like ostriches.
 
these models are pretty bludy clever

"El Niño-Southern Oscillation, ENSO, is the most prominent known source of inter-annual variability in weather and climate around the world (about 3 to 8 years), .. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation


 
How certain is global warming? Can anyone accurately predict the future? Why should we worry about something that might never happen?

Lots of ways to consider the issue of whether mankind is changing the earths climate and if so how concerned we should be.

If you take the trouble to read the analysis of the thousands of climate scientists who have examined the evidence it looks as if there is a very large chance we are going to cook the planet in a way that will destroy almost all life as we know it. At least that is what they think will happen.

Of course its possible they are all wrong. The future hasn't happened after all and who knows what will actually occur until it happens....

Perhaps. But in fact as intelligent people we plan our entire lives and the structure of our society on being able to foresee probable events and taking steps to prevent damage.

We don't travel on overladen ships because there is real risk they will sink in a minor storm. (Plimsoll line ) We design aeroplanes with really, really reliable engines and do careful maintenance to try and ensure they don't fall out of the sky. We actually take out house and car insurance because we figure that while it is only a small chance we will have a fire, we can't afford the consequences if there is one. We have days of total fire ban because we have a pretty clear idea of what will happen if a BBQ gets away on 40 degree day with a 40 knot north wind.

This is not rocket science.

If there was just a 1% chance that the continual emission of CO2 was going to cause the effective destruction of almost all life on life (and extreme as it sounds that is the direction we are going) wouldn't it make sense to change direction even at considerable cost? Perhaps call it life insurance ?

By the way who do you think was responsible for the speech below on climate change in 1989 ?


Interested in learning why we should take out a policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Bit long but does cover all elements of the research that has been undertaken. Perhaps complex for people without some science background

http://www.realclimate.org/
A web site by climate scientists.

And why do we have to do this yesterday? The really scary part about global warming is the effect of climate change feedback loops. At present scientists have identified and are monitoring at least 12 effects of global warming which if they continue will cause the release of even more CO2 and speed up the process to the point where it is unstoppable. Bit like starting forest fire and letting it go.. . Once it has a good hold on dry forest it will burn until there is no more fuel..

http://www.andweb.demon.co.uk/environment/globalwarmingfeedback.html
 

I agree that we should be more holistic in our treatment of the earth but refute the behaviour of the global warmeners.

They have elevated their computations on probability to an expectation that it will happen.

This is pursued with a theological diligence and dissenters are shouted down and marginalised.

It further makes for a cosy train on which the lazy of thought sit, tossing barriers in front of honest workers and capitalists , in the name of saving the earth.

The godbotherers should take a page out of the warmeners book. They have the ability to negate every proof contrary to any tiny tenet of their belief by ridiculing and ignoring such proof.

Probability and expectation are different, but this seems to escape their notice.

As with the stock market, when a cabbie starts quoting the index its time to get out. Equally when a Hollywood starlet or starboy finds god or starts pushing global warmening, its time to question the science and expectation.

If you want to know what the weather is , stick your head out the window, don't turn on the TV.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
If you want to know what the weather is , stick your head out the window, don't turn on the TV.
Click to expand...

lol

 
That's an arguable point given that the "cost" of action to reduce CO2 will involve an awful lot of damage to the natural environment.

If we're going to act over the next 50 years then there are a lot of options.

If we're going to act over the next 20 years then, in practice, we're going to have to rely totally on technology that's ready and proven literally right now.

This means that, in practice, if we decide it's urgent and we have to begin today and we're going for a decent cut then we end up with probably 65% nuclear, 15% large scale hydro, 10% fossil fuel and 10% others (mostly wind) for power generation at the global level in participating countries. And just about all of that capacity would be under physical construction within a year or two, hence the reliance on present technology.

And in the process of this we end up switching everything possible over to electricity, so total power generation sharply increases from present levels.

Also we'd end up trashing a lot of forests for biofuel crops. This is already happening to some extent, to the point of threatening some species, and it would almost certainly be massively expanded in order to meet the CO2 cuts in an environment where the consequences of doing so are ignored.

Are you SURE you want to nuke and flood everything and kill a lot of trees and birds in order to fix the CO2 problem? If we knew we had another 30 years then that wouldn't be necessary so it's not as simple as it may seem.
 
Smurf1976 said:
That's an arguable point given that the "cost" of action to reduce CO2 will involve an awful lot of damage to the natural environment.
Click to expand...
and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment
 
2020hindsight said:
and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment
Click to expand...
Indeed there is, I'm just pointing out that it's not a "nothing to lose" situation - it's lose or lose and the debate is about which is the bigger loss.

I say that knowing that we've had the coal Vs nuclear debate in Australia before just as we've had the hydro Vs coal and wind Vs coal debates. In all cases, the "green" position has been the one that ends up with more coal being burnt, presumably because many see the alternatives as worse.

That's why I'm not optimistic that anything will be done. First people won't want the financial cost. And then there will be fierce objection to the environmental costs. That's been the entire history of the energy Vs environment debate internationally - it's land use change, aesthetics and radioactive things that spark protests, not CO2. Same from Australia to the US to Europe.

2020 and others. I'm going to work out a proper example here on how a community (eg an Australian state or territory) would actually cut CO2 by x% by a given date. I think the results will be interesting to say the least. I'll focus on energy-related emissions only to keep it simple. Does anyone have a % cut and a date in mind for this exercise?
 
2020hindsight said:
and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment
Click to expand...
...and in one sentence you expose the whole hypocrisy of the AGW religion.

Example - Al Bore:

Still lives with an enormous carbon footprint and has admitted that he is raking it in off the back of the CC scare.

There is an easy way to lessen the impact on the planet in whatever form is actually factual (i.e. NOT co2 induced GW)

DO LESS!

Travel less
Eat less
Own less
Package less
Breed less
Build smaller houses
Walk instead of drive

I don't see the GW scammers doing that.

I do them doing MORE of the above. Last time I was lectured on GW was as Sainsbury's by a woman who had driven to the Supermarket in her BMW X5, from her rather large centrally heated and energy hungry house, from behind her trolly full of te most elaborately packaged items she could buy.

Pullleeeeze, such obnoxious and poisonous duplicity from you people is truly sickening. Come back when you can walk the talk; until then, frac off and let the truly environmentally conscious do the real work.
 
I wonder.....

How much reading or research do other forum members do on global warming? The issue has been around now since the mid eighties and the physical evidence of a warming earth have become clearer and clearer.

The core of the argument, that CO2 traps the suns energy and warms the earth, was recognised over a hundred years ago. The fact that over the last 200 years and particularly in the last 40-50 years, man has poured far more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be taken out through natural process (trees, soil intake, absorption into the ocean) was always going to cause the earth to warm up.

The role of scientists has been to work out by how much and what the effect might be. And along the way scientists have come to learn about the many other effects on the earths climate and teased out their impact. In the end their understanding is that the biggest cause of the current global warming is excess manmade production of CO2. And if it continues at the current projection... well we are cooked

I'm surprised at the disbelief and sometimes outright scorn directed to the scientific community. Do you really believe the men and woman who have drilled ice cores and tested and checked and rechecked and reworked their figures and almost to a singularity have come to the same conclusion are abjectly wrong? Would anyone on the forum express the same scorn for building engineers, medical scientists, chemical engineers and the like?

As far as solutions go.. there are possible ways to radically reduce our carbon emissions AND absorb as much as possible of the excess we already have. Again if anyone is interested in reading a constructive approach to the issue I suggest "The Geography of Hope" by Chris Turner. Great read, positive, real, uplifting.

Cheers

PS It was Margaret Thatcher who made the Global Warming speech to UN in 1989. Of course she did ****all about it afterwards.
 
wayneL said:
Pullleeeeze, such obnoxious and poisonous duplicity from you people is truly sickening. Come back when you can walk the talk; until then, frac off and let the truly environmentally conscious do the real work.
Click to expand...

YOu insist on making this personal WL
So I'll make it personal
Perhaps you don't act because you don't have kids to apologise to?

PS act as in something other than dancing around the edges. - you're talking cents. I want to talk dollars.
Get some international cooperation into place - reafforestation, nuclear, education of women in third worlds etc.
 
I've been aware of it since 1987. Did the initial panic thing but after the 1991 power supply scare (in Tas) I realised it was all a bit more complicated.

Those two things were actually quite defining events in my life. I couldn't have named a single power station anywhere in 1990. By 1992 I was lobbying politicians, was a technical expert to various groups by 1995 and in 1997 released an integrated energy strategy which has in practice been largely implemented.

So yeah, I've done a bit on the subject. And that's what turned my initial optimism, thinking it was simply a matter of doing a few things to cut emissions, into a more conservative view that acknowledges just how radical the required measures are and how difficult it would be to implement them without the support of economic rivals. It's not a matter of changing a few bulbs, catching the bus and closing a coal-fired power plant or two then giving the workers jobs in tourism - that approach sounds good but it doesn't actually work once you do the sums.

If someone cares to choose a date and a % cut, then I'll work out a proper example of how that could actually be achieved. Obviously it's going to be fairly basic, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise. I'm planning to do one for Tasmania and one for another state, likely either Vic or SA. Only reason for those location is having the data available. Anyone got a date and % cut figure in mind?

AS for Thatcher, I must point out that there were a lot of non-environmental issues withing the UK at the time for which an objective to cut CO2 was highly convenient politically. When you are trying to convince a public that has never heard of climate change that closing coal mines, thus putting huge numbers out of work, and building nuclear plants (this was just 3 years after Chernobyl...) is somehow a good idea then you'd be a fool not to mention the CO2 issue.

Truth is the local issues were more about military nuclear activities, maximising the estraction rate (and hence profits and taxes) of North Sea oil and gas and smashing the unions. CO2 wasn't the issue, but it was a useful political tool at time.
 

I've pretty well lost interest in following this debate these days, but would be interested in seeing an example of whatever % cut and date is being called for by the xspurts at the moment.

Was it 20% by 2020? Something like that would be interesting to see.
 

I beg your pardon? You can't read.
 
2020hindsight said:
Get some international cooperation into place - reafforestation, nuclear, education of women in third worlds etc.
Click to expand...

The time is out of joint for international cooperation among world leaders to agree on a theory that global warming is man-made and then do something about it. They have other issues on their plates.

Our leader often tells us that the price of inaction on carbon emissions far exceeds the price of action. He then gets in his private jet and crisscrosses the globe, laying down a huge carbon footprint, to hobnob with other world leaders doing the same thing. When they meet they create a lot of hot air and achieve little.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that countries like Russia, Canada and the Scandanavian countries would greatly benefit from global warming. Warming in Russia in particular would provide access to enormous mineral resources and oil and open new shipping channels.


.
 
Calliope said:
... Warming in Russia in particular would provide access to enormous mineral resources and oil and open new shipping channels.
Click to expand...
yep - gives a new meaning to the Cold War doesn't it - maybe rename it the Warm War

But hang on - Wayne assures us that it's not getting warmer, and that there is no nett melting of glaciers ice caps etc. (Depends which of his posts you read)

Interestingly the only places in October 2008 to be cooler (anomalies) than "the 1961 - 1990 base period" appear to be Alaska and Arizona (?) Maybe Sarah DID have a direct link to God after all

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
 

Attachments

  • 2008 oct temp anomalies.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 99
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...