Climate change another name for Weather

[Pat]

Energy conservation and efficiency. When you have the present monetary system with its inherent requirement for constant growth, energy efficiency and conservation are totally ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions. Whilst one individual may emit less, across the whole economy that is offset. For example, you spend less on petrol because you use less of it. So you spend more on something else - and that something else pollutes more than you'd probably like to admit whilst we have an energy system almost totally based on fossil fuels. The only thing that actually works is to change that energy system to something else - renewables or nuclear.

Yep, thats true, so should we bother?

It's only the beginning. Time is needed to change, slowly but surely we shall have to.

Your 2 major pillars can be replaced by renewables- the sun. Sure the technology is not entirely there, but we are on our way. Give it 100yrs, I'm sure I'd smile at the things I'd see.

 

[wayneL]

Here's a sight you never see in Oz (That's snow BTW, not white beach sand):

Another weather event to blame on GW

While the adults fret and grumble, the kids make the most of it.

 

[2020hindsight]

Mind you, each Aussie makes about the same CO2e as 23 (app) Ethiopians.

or
1.4 Kiwis
2.0 Norwegians or Germans or Russians
2.5 Austrians or Sth Africans
3 Swedes or Argentinians or Swiss
4 Mexicans
5 Thais
6 Chinese
7 Fijians
10 Tongans
11 Indians
20 Afghans etc
.........
3 french hens , 2 turtle doves etc

 

[2020hindsight]

Here's a sight you never see in Oz

so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?

 

[wayneL]

so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?

Deary me!

By continuing with this straw man argument:

a/ You have trouble comprehending the English language and are therefore intellectually challenged.

b/ You haven't read my posts properly and are therefore intellectually slovenly.

c/ You are willfully misrepresenting what I have written and therefore deceitful and/or dishonest.

If a/ you should excuse yourself as not having the mental capacity for a reasoned debate.

If b/ you should apologize for casting aspersions based on inaccurate recollections.

If c/ you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself and give yourself a good uppercut to the solar plexus.

I have an idea which of the above it is, but I'd like to hear it from you. But before doing so, I'd like you to carefully review my posts on this matter so-as to not further embarrass yourself.

 

[jonojpsg]

It was known as "the greenhouse effect" for many years. Most Australians would have heard that term somewhere in the late 1980's.

Then it became "global warming" during the 1990's. My understanding is that this was supposedly to convey a more serious message, since "greenhouse effect" seemed a somewhat humorous term to some and didn't convey the message of a serious scientific issue.

This decade it has become "Climate Change", a terms which effectively allows any change in climate, or simply a variation in weather, to be attributed to the CO2 issue. This seems more a political action than a scientific one.

In regard to the population issue that some have mentioned, it will correct itself sooner than most are expecting. There are 2 big and 3 medium pillars that enable the present population level to be sustained. Without either of the two big pillars, or without the collective contribution of the medium ones, it simply isn't practical to sustain the present population.

Major pillars: Oil, Natural Gas

Medium pillars: Coal, Nuclear energy, Hydro-electricity

Take out the energy and the whole lot comes crashing down rather fast. That means, in short, food production collapses without oil and gas whilst food processing, preservation and distribution falls in a heap without those plus coal, nuclear and hydro.

Rather alarming I'd think that BOTH of the major pillars are seriously limited resources and that only one of the medium pillars is actually sustainable in the long term. So it's either a technological revolution, we find a heap more oil and gas, or population is headed down in a big way at some point.

ABSOLUTELY Smurf - I'd point people to Peak Oil thread for more discussion on this point. Sorry for butting in

 

[basilio]

Deary me!

By continuing with this straw man argument:

a/ You have trouble comprehending the English language and are therefore intellectually challenged.

b/ You haven't read my posts properly and are therefore intellectually slovenly.

c/ You are willfully misrepresenting what I have written and therefore deceitful and/or dishonest.

If a/ you should excuse yourself as not having the mental capacity for a reasoned debate.

If b/ you should apologize for casting aspersions based on inaccurate recollections.

If c/ you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself and give yourself a good uppercut to the solar plexus.

I have an idea which of the above it is, but I'd like to hear it from you. But before doing so, I'd like you to carefully review my posts on this matter so-as to not further embarrass yourself.

Wayne why are we wasting out time and energy discussing these issues with you?

Looking at your previous posts and in particular your aggression to fellow forum members I think you are acting like a troll.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne why are we wasting out time and energy discussing these issues with you?

Looking at your previous posts and in particular your aggression to fellow forum members I think you are acting like a troll.

Basilio, strong opinions opposite to yours does not make me a troll.

Have a look at many of the global warmers arguments. If there is any disagreement with their position, whether it is based on excellent science, common sense, observation, observation and comment on junk science, whatever, the immediate reaction is to go ad hominem and try to destroy the dissenters credibility.

If that is the debating landscape as set by the warmers, then so be it. Fire with fire.

In my answer to 2020 there, he is trying to build a straw man argument that my argument has no consistency. This is demonstrably wrong. I have simply set out choices as to his reason/motivation.

Warmers try to portray the argument as irrefutable and settled based on the science. This is so far from the truth that is laughable. You cannot be a scientist and ignore all the science that refutes your hypothesis. That's not science, that's fraud.

Now, if you have something useful to add to the debate, please do so, otherwise take your ad hominem slurs elsewhere.

BTW, while 10,000 IPCC delegate burn 100's of tonnes of fossil fuel flying to Poland to have a wafflefest, European ski slopes are opening early. http://insurance.essentialtravel.co.uk/news/travel-news-article6467.asp

 

[Smurf1976]

Your 2 major pillars can be replaced by renewables- the sun. Sure the technology is not entirely there, but we are on our way. Give it 100yrs, I'm sure I'd smile at the things I'd see.

Technically it's possible but I'd expect economic utility to be a problem as far as converting sunlight into fertilizer or chemicals is concerned. You can't have industrial agriculture without those and if you don't have industrial agriculture then you don't have the yield to feed the populaton. Technically doable as I said, but it only works if it can retain the same productivity as oil or gas and I'm doubtful on that point.

 

[Smurf1976]

so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?

Lightening the mood a tad here...

I sure wish it was warmer. 8 degrees outside now, 4 with the wind chill factor. There's something just not quite right about freezing whilst putting up Christmas lights in Australia!

Oh well, the lights will add a bit of warmth directly and perhaps via CO2. Add in my all the heating I'm using and my power bill's going to be a real ripper... Just as well it's been raining though, that will help keep the carbon footprint lower.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Basilio, strong opinions opposite to yours does not make me a troll.

Have a look at many of the global warmers arguments. If there is any disagreement with their position, whether it is based on excellent science, common sense, observation, observation and comment on junk science, whatever, the immediate reaction is to go ad hominem and try to destroy the dissenters credibility.

If that is the debating landscape as set by the warmers, then so be it. Fire with fire.

In my answer to 2020 there, he is trying to build a straw man argument that my argument has no consistency. This is demonstrably wrong. I have simply set out choices as to his reason/motivation.

Warmers try to portray the argument as irrefutable and settled based on the science. This is so far from the truth that is laughable. You cannot be a scientist and ignore all the science that refutes your hypothesis. That's not science, that's fraud.

Now, if you have something useful to add to the debate, please do so, otherwise take your ad hominem slurs elsewhere.

BTW, while 10,000 IPCC delegate burn 100's of tonnes of fossil fuel flying to Poland to have a wafflefest, European ski slopes are opening early. http://insurance.essentialtravel.co.uk/news/travel-news-article6467.asp

In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. Science is ongoing.

Warmeners have a religious tinge about them , and that is the essence of this argument.

gg

 

[Julia]

Lightening the mood a tad here...

I sure wish it was warmer. 8 degrees outside now, 4 with the wind chill factor. There's something just not quite right about freezing whilst putting up Christmas lights in Australia!

Oh well, the lights will add a bit of warmth directly and perhaps via CO2. Add in my all the heating I'm using and my power bill's going to be a real ripper... Just as well it's been raining though, that will help keep the carbon footprint lower.

Well, Smurf, here's the solution.
You get out of Tassie and its shocking climate, come up here to balmy Qld (where all you have to contend with are house demolishing storms), and take over the management of the Queensland electricity supply.
It would seem to be a win-win situation all round.
We'd make you very welcome.

 

[wayneL]

In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. Science is ongoing.

Warmeners have a religious tinge about them , and that is the essence of this argument.

gg

GG,

You will enjoy this article:

The Religion of Global Warming

 

[spooly74]

In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. Science is ongoing.

gg

So true.
In the 4th IPCC report, it showed that the previous report in 2001, had overestimated the anthropogenic effect by at least one-third since the industrial revolution....and that's giving the cherry pickers the benefit of doubt.

 

[wayneL]

Science is ongoing.

Link to a recent paper: http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3349

New Research Questions the Impact of CO2 on Climate
Written by Dennis Behreandt
Monday, 06 October 2008 16:15

For a number years, Dr. John Christie has done tremendous scientific work aimed at increasing our understanding of the climate.

Where many climatological efforts are focused on computer modeling of climate and reaching conclusions based on those models, rather than on analysis and testing of real world phenomena, Christie and several other scientists have turned to the real work of actually observing and measuring the real world.

In a new paper [PDF] accepted in August for publication in the journal Energy and Environment, Christie, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and collaborator David H. Douglass of the department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester in New York, examine some of their recent findings.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

GG,

You will enjoy this article:

The Religion of Global Warming

Good article there Wayne.

Feed the masses a lie and religion comes out with loyal followers.

 

[wayneL]

from www.goredearth.com

 

[Sean K]

Good article there Wayne.

Feed the masses a lie and religion comes out with loyal followers.

Yep, and this quote fits well...

'As with the system of papal indulgences introduced in the late Middle Ages, anyone with enough money can buy their freedom from damnation by purchasing enough ‘credits.’ This gives them an official license to continue sinning, by emitting excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, regardless of what a corrupt sham the whole system has become.'

And nice summary. How about the dude who can't get his book published because it goes against the new religion. LOL

“My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to fine a wide market.”

 

[Pat]

Technically it's possible but I'd expect economic utility to be a problem as far as converting sunlight into fertilizer or chemicals is concerned. You can't have industrial agriculture without those and if you don't have industrial agriculture then you don't have the yield to feed the populaton. Technically doable as I said, but it only works if it can retain the same productivity as oil or gas and I'm doubtful on that point.

My point is we are making the first steps towards a cleaner future. As long as the human race tries to better our ways, we so much more of a chance of being around for another 50 000 yrs or so. Why not try?

 

[Pat]

I'm not an enviro fanatic. But I do see the logic in the GW/CC argument.

I also find it illogical to dismiss/ignore the argument based on contradicting evidence. The hypothesis can only be proved/disproved with (lots of) time. unless you got a crystal ball...

We should work on a solution to the problem... That doesn’t mean destroying the economy/world as we know it to find the solutions. The solutions actually have a chance at making this world a much better place to live.