Climate change another name for Weather

[Smurf1976]

One thing I can say, it seems to me the skeptics are increasing in number.

Regardless of the underlying issue, evidence etc, I think it would be very hard to argue with the notion that the skeptics are certainly becoming a lot more visible.

1988 it was accepted as fact, the only questions being how bad it would be, when it would happen and what we could do about it.

21 years later there's a lot more visible dissent on the basic notion that CO2 is a problem, suggesting that the greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change is following the same basic path as do many things. Ignored, ridiculed, accepted as fact and then challenged.

A lot of things concerning the environment have followed that same basic pattern over the years - nucelar, waste disposal, dams, logging, pollution in general. Ignored at first, then ridiculed and claimed not to be a problem, then accepted as fact and often as a "good thing" and then later the subject of a divisive battle by an increasing group of dissenters. It's all cyclical this stuff...

 

[trainspotter]

Will trade carbon credits for sex.

 

[stocksontheblock]

A lot of things concerning the environment have followed that same basic pattern over the years - nucelar, waste disposal, dams, logging, pollution in general. Ignored at first, then ridiculed and claimed not to be a problem, then accepted as fact and often as a "good thing" and then later the subject of a divisive battle by an increasing group of dissenters. It's all cyclical this stuff...

While I agree broadly with this, the one thing that does worry me is that this is - if you believe it - a true global problem, with very real global consequences. If you believe there is a problem of course.

 

[Calliope]

Yay, I officially have a stalker now, how cool is that!

Don't flatter yourself that I would stalk an easybeat like you. I just like exposing frauds, especially those who claim to be university educated and yet admit they have no credibility, pretend to be clever and have a poor grasp of English.

 

[wayneL]

Ummm ... without raiding my book collection and searching the net for things I have read, I can 'refer' to a couple of books that come to mind:

1. The Chaos Point, The World at the Crossroads. Ervin Laszlo. (Good read by the way, not just climate, yet on all aspects of how we should think of creating a better place to live - that’s if you think we need it).

2. The Weather Makers. Tim Flannnery - A VERY BIG alarmist.

3. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Thomas L. Friedman. (Great book).

Without having to read them again to find the page and exact quote, there are references to the 'effect' of global warming as being something that has occurred in the past - many times, and that it will happen as a natural consequence of how 'things work'. Earths rotation, environmental factors, etc.

However, if I recall, this is a natural process which occurs over time, and that it is gradual.

From their, and others I have read, their point is that we are polluting so much that we are speeding up this natural process, and while it cant be stopped when it occurs naturally, it could be planned for. So, given we are speeding this process up by many 10's of thousands of yrs we are bringing something forward that is more rapid and possibly doesn’t give us time - if we ignore it, to make plans, try and effect the outcome, or effect the consequences.

Let’s just say the polar caps do melt. If we had time, recognised it, and prepared for it we could better understand who (places by the water) would be effected, and thus make plans for those who would be displaced to be relocated.

My point is not to either agree or disagree, yet I think there is a reasonable amount of 'evidence' to suggest we as a people are doing a pretty crap job for the environment on the whole, so we should, where possible make changes to either stop, or slow down - even halt (if we could somehow), what is apparently inevitable in nature.

Flannery et al have nothing more than a hypothesis. One that fails to predict anything at all, therefore, not qualified as theory.

How we pollute this earth is a disgrace. This should be addressed. It isn't in any substantive way.

The focus on co2 and AGW detracts from the real factors and is a red herring. Yes, we should urgently address general pollution, waste and LAND USE. But the co2 argument is fallacious, it is a minor player in CC and it's role in climate change has been VASTLY overstated and misrepresented to policy makers.

http://climatesci.org

 

[trainspotter]

Boys, boys, boys. Let's focus on the weather and not each other PUHLEASE!

 

[Smurf1976]

While I agree broadly with this, the one thing that does worry me is that this is - if you believe it - a true global problem, with very real global consequences. If you believe there is a problem of course.

The notion of a global problem I can accept even though I'm unconvinced as to the severity (open mind there).

But I find it very hard to take seriously anyone proposing a "solution" to a global problem that doesn't actually reduce the global cause of that problem.

The various schemes we hear about involve mostly relocating the point source of emissions rather than reducing them, a "solution" that sounds more like an economic treaty than an environmental one to me. If CO2 is going to cook the planet then moving the smoke stacks from one country to another isn't going to help in the slightest, indeed it may even make things worse due to the increased shipping required. And yet doing this is precisely what the mainstream "solutions" propose, hence my opposition to them.

 

[stocksontheblock]

Don't flatter yourself that I would stalk an easybeat like you. I just like exposing frauds, especially those who claim to be university educated and yet admit they have no credibility, pretend to be clever and have a poor grasp of English.

Wow ... your back again, great. I was starting to think that you had been told to go to bed. Thank you for coming back!

Well, I guess I should give you a poke so you will come back again. Easybeat, is two words, not one. It is generally accepted that there is no need for the capital E in English, as you are referring to the language english, and not the people – English.

MMM … credibility? Now, if I recall, I think you, my loving stalker claimed I had none. I just asked the question, “did I have any to start with?”

As for a fraud, then sure, if it makes you feel better to think of me as a fraud then great, you can use this as a quote for the next stalk you make: “I am a fraud with no credibility”. Please, and I expect that you would anyway, be sure to use that out of context.

I think I will grow to like you little Calliope. I love smug condescending -------. Pick any word you like, to fill the ------, the one I have in mind starts with an ‘a’.

I think as I have seen TS say, Flam On! Have I got that right? I am sure you will let me know.

Ohhh, and please, don’t feel ignored if I don’t respond to all your little posts. As I am, unlike you, flattered with all the attention, yet I should keep something for later.

 

[stocksontheblock]

Boys, boys, boys. Let's focus on the weather and not each other PUHLEASE!

I know, yet how can I not ... I think there is so much more to be said that doesnt include this childish behaviour.

However, sorry to all, I will ignore little Calliope from now on. Now matter how much he continues to stalk me. :

 

[trainspotter]

It's actually "FLAME ON" ... Johnny Storm. Your talent is wasted on the likes of Calliope. He prefers his lizards grilled and not frilled.

 

[stocksontheblock]

Flannery et al have nothing more than a hypothesis. One that fails to predict anything at all, therefore, not qualified as theory.

How we pollute this earth is a disgrace. This should be addressed. It isn't in any substantive way.

The focus on co2 and AGW detracts from the real factors and is a red herring. Yes, we should urgently address general pollution, waste and LAND USE. But the co2 argument is fallacious, it is a minor player in CC and it's role in climate change has been VASTLY overstated and misrepresented to policy makers.

http://climatesci.org

Ohhh I agree that what they are saying going forward ... mmm ... wasnt that one of the pet hate's in another thread? Yet, from what I understand there appears to be historical 'evidence' of global warming events and hence, like most forecasts I guess they take conditions from the past, plug them into models based on certain conditions and, as you say, create a hypothesis on what may happen.

Smurf1976 would seem to have the right approach.

I guess the one question I have is that should there be a one fits all 'solution' applied, or should this be discussed, and then moderated based on many views? (what springs to mind, the saying as to why we have Camels) For example, in another thread the talk of banning plastic bags has really ended up being just that, talk. Should communities be allowed to ban them as they see-fit, or should it be a bold declaration from the Fed to say as from tomorrow there will be no more made?

Sure, this might be a little simple when things like pollution from mining etc need to be considered, yet what is the approach to take when there are so many vested interest groups?

 

[Calliope]

I am not even sure that those so called alarmists doubt that this is a "normal occurrence". The one thing I have taken away from the whole Climate debate over the years is that it is not the fact that this does happen naturally, it’s that we have accelerated a process by 10's, of not 100's of thousands of years.

Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?

 

[stocksontheblock]

Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?

I think, like many who have posted in this thread Co2 could be in my view, a red herring.

I am not a chemist, and don’t claim to be, however I have read about what is spewed our of the factories and power plants around the nation and the world, and Co2 makes up a part of the overall pollution, however what concerns me is the complete lack of any care by - those who have the power - to make any effective and lasting change.

Its all tear jerking stuff, yet I firmly believe that whether CC and all the other names for it are as bad for us as some say makes not a little bit of difference to me. What I do care about is that at the expense of the planets health - in general, and our health - as a people, we seem to be coming up with half-assed ways on keeping those who believe nothing bad will happen, and those who think the world will end tomorrow.

The question should not be about how bad it may or may not be, it should be about how can we make change to our lives that does not result in killing ourselves, the planet, or going at least half-way there.

We don’t need plastic bags from shops, so stop them being made. It’s very simple. Don’t ask companies to apply for piss-ant $3 and $5 million grants to develop ways for cars to run clearer, pass a law that makes them do it from their own money and give them 10 yrs, and I bet pounds to pennies there will be a solution in 5 yrs, not 10.

Sure, some will be hurt, some jobs lost; maybe a few things might cost more, yet so what? There will be new jobs created, and for a few extra cents, I'm happy to pay if it means that the air I breathe is clean.

Some problems have very simple solutions, its just we have politicians who have to make them for us. So, where’s the hope?

Yet, to answer your question, yes Co2 is a cause, yet thats the media created nasty because they can spell it and people understand it. Its the rest of the crap being pumped out that concerns me more.

 

[Buckeroo]

Regardless of the underlying issue, evidence etc, I think it would be very hard to argue with the notion that the skeptics are certainly becoming a lot more visible.

1988 it was accepted as fact, the only questions being how bad it would be, when it would happen and what we could do about it.

21 years later there's a lot more visible dissent on the basic notion that CO2 is a problem, suggesting that the greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change is following the same basic path as do many things. Ignored, ridiculed, accepted as fact and then challenged.

A lot of things concerning the environment have followed that same basic pattern over the years - nucelar, waste disposal, dams, logging, pollution in general. Ignored at first, then ridiculed and claimed not to be a problem, then accepted as fact and often as a "good thing" and then later the subject of a divisive battle by an increasing group of dissenters. It's all cyclical this stuff...

Wow, a lots happen here since I've been gone.

Anyway Smurf, I agree what your saying, but all these arguments are being controlled by vested interests particularly when we talk about global warming.

For instance, packaging & the absolute waste of resources this is, as well as the energy required to create it. I can safely say, this particular issue won't be tackled in any form because governments & business can't make any money out of it - it would be so simple to regulate & minimize packaging that its laughable.

As with banning plastic bags at shopping centers? Well, all I see is the government giving the plastic bag manufacturers more value - people will have to buy the large, thicker bags you buy in a box as a replacement.

And with global warming, its a bonanza for governments & financial organizations (carbon trading) - industry isn't too perturbed either because they will just pass on any costs to the consumer (as long as its done in unison globally)

So you can see why I'm a skeptic?

Cheers

 

[Knobby22]

They will be gratified to learn that they have the blessing of someone called Knobby22, providing they follow his advice.

Yes, Calliope.
I give you my royal pardon to think as much as you like.
Please use it.

I haven't thought of any advice yet, but a short pier comes to mind.:aliena:

 

[Pat]

Sure, this might be a little simple when things like pollution from mining etc need to be considered, yet what is the approach to take when there are so many vested interest groups?

Unfortunately it will always be the most profitable approach .

 

[noco]

Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?

No Calliope, I think the C02 emmissions are coming from the "GRASS" that stocksontheblock smokes.

It also affects how the brain operates. You know what I mean---- all FUSSY-FUSSY. A lot of those Uni students get hooked on the stuff.

 

[Smurf1976]

We don’t need plastic bags from shops, so stop them being made. It’s very simple. Don’t ask companies to apply for piss-ant $3 and $5 million grants to develop ways for cars to run clearer, pass a law that makes them do it from their own money and give them 10 yrs, and I bet pounds to pennies there will be a solution in 5 yrs, not 10.

Sure, some will be hurt, some jobs lost; maybe a few things might cost more, yet so what? There will be new jobs created, and for a few extra cents, I'm happy to pay if it means that the air I breathe is clean.

Serious question here.

What is the effect on:

1. land use / salinity / water

2. CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions

From a ban on plastic bags. It would seem to me that any such ban will fix one problem whilst increasing both of those two. Plastic has its downside, but it's an outright winner in terms of not needing anything grown and producing minimal CO2 compared to alternatives.

We live in a world of tradeoffs. Easy to cut CO2 - as long as you don't mind some other environmental impacts. Indeed 30 years ago those other impacts (specifically those related to nuclear and hydro, the only substantial non-fossil sources of electricity) were the entire focus of the mainstream environmental movement and are waht first made Australians seriously think about the environment.

ALL power pollutes. Coal, oil and gas spew out CO2. Hydro floods the wilderness. Nuclear is dangerous beyond belief when you consider the risks of war or natural disaster over the next 100,000 years. Wind turbines kill the birds. Solar panels need lots of energy-intensive and polluting materials to make. Large scale biomass starts with old growth logging to clear the land. And so on...

ALL power pollutes in some way, the only question is what form we'd prefer the pollution to take. As I've said many times here, I'd rather a flooded river (the damage from which is reversible in a few decades at most) or the scenery blighted by wind turbines or solar thermal plants (easily reversible - - just dismantle them and plant trees on the land) than have a 10,000+ year problem with CO2 or nuclear waste. But I won't argue that the non-fossil non-nuclear power sources don't pollute because in a way they certainly do.

 

[So_Cynical]

Serious question here.

What is the effect on:

1. land use / salinity / water

2. CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions

From a ban on plastic bags. It would seem to me that any such ban will fix one problem whilst increasing both of those two.

A while ago i actually tried to find out what the the GHG impact of plastic bags was...After a lot of digging, eventually came to the conclusion it was pretty much irrelevant.

ALL power pollutes. Coal, oil and gas spew out CO2. Hydro floods the wilderness. Nuclear is dangerous beyond belief when you consider the risks of war or natural disaster over the next 100,000 years. Wind turbines kill the birds. Solar panels need lots of energy-intensive and polluting materials to make. Large scale biomass starts with old growth logging to clear the land. And so on...

ALL power pollutes in some way, the only question is what form we'd prefer the pollution to take. As I've said many times here, I'd rather a flooded river (the damage from which is reversible in a few decades at most) or the scenery blighted by wind turbines or solar thermal plants (easily reversible - - just dismantle them and plant trees on the land) than have a 10,000+ year problem with CO2 or nuclear waste. But I won't argue that the non-fossil non-nuclear power sources don't pollute because in a way they certainly do.

Taking into account all the impacts and limitations of all the available power generation technologies...the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor LFTR has to come out on top...ill cut and paste the important bits.

• 
  The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) uses inexpensive thorium as a fuel, transforming it to uranium-233 which fissions, producing heat and electric power at a cost less than that from coal power plants.
  
  
• These LFTR plants produce less hazardous waste than coal or other forms of nuclear energy -- less than 1/100 the long-lived radioactive waste of today's nuclear power plants. It can consume spent fuel now stored outside existing nuclear power plants.
  
  
• They use an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive thorium fuel. One tonne of thorium (costing $100,000) provides 1 GW-year of electric power, enough for a city...and Aust has massive deposits.
  
  
• There air cooled and the LFTR operates at high temperature, for 50% thermal/electrical conversion efficiency, thus needing only half the cooling required by today's coal or nuclear plant cooling towers.
  
  
• No plutonium or other fissile material is ever isolated or transported to or from the LFTR, except for importing spent nuclear fuel waste used to start the LFTR.
  
  
• The LFTR is intrinsically safe because overheating expands the fuel salt past criticality, because LFTR fuel is not pressurized, and because total loss of power or control will allow a freeze-plug to melt, gravitationally draining all fuel salt into a dump tray, where it cools convectively.

http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thorium_Reactors
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

 

[stocksontheblock]

No Calliope, I think the C02 emmissions are coming from the "GRASS" that stocksontheblock smokes.

It also affects how the brain operates. You know what I mean---- all FUSSY-FUSSY. A lot of those Uni students get hooked on the stuff.

I'm so glad to see such a valuable contribution. Thank you! :