Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

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.

Sorry jono,

It is the IPCC playing the politics game.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

Easiest way to work out how concerned people really are is by what they're actually doing.

So could someone please explain this to me:

1. In city areas most cars are simply commuter transport and a means of carrying the shopping home. So how do we explain more than 10 - 20% of vehicles in the major cities being larger than a 4 cylinder hatchback?

Every single person who drives a car larger than they absolutely need has made a conscious decision to spend extra money in order to produce extra CO2.

2. Why are solar water heaters still a niche technology with 60% of Australian homes using the least efficient technology available for heating water?

Given that efficient water heating is one of the cheapest ways to cut CO2 emissions, it's logical that anyone willing to pay to cut CO2 would start with this option since it's the cheapest.

3. Why is there still mass opposition to nuclear, hydro and wind power whilst there is virtually no public opposition to the oil industry and very little against coal or gas?

The entire Green movement has spent many years and a great deal of effort opposing energy development. But virtually all that effort has gone into opposing the cleaner sources, not the big CO2 emitters. This makes an outright mockery of the claim that CO2 is the most important environmental issue. In practice it ranks behind everything from nuclear waste to the scenic effects of transmission lines.

4. Why do environmentalists and most Australians continue to support the aviation based tourism industry?

If you want to cut CO2 emissions, then simply not flying for your own personal enjoyment is arguably the simplest and easiest way to do it. Unless, of course, your recreation trumps CO2 on your list of priorities.

Bottom line is that these are all very significant points relating to this issue and ALL of them imply that Australians do not see CO2 as the most important issue. Actions speak louder than words and on that basis CO2 ranks below scenery preservation, toxic waste, wilderness protection, saving money, status symbols and personal recreation.

Every time there's a choice to make, CO2 loses out to these other objectives. Toxic waste and the wilderness might be arguable points, but recreation and status symbols? It doesn't look like there's too much genuine concern to me.

 

[Calliope]

Smurf. I live in the sunshine state, where every backyard has it's Hills hoist.
Yet would you believe the number of people who use clothes dryers, simply because they won't wait another day for the sun to come out. There are few houses that don't have a clothes dryer.

 

[Nashezz]

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.

Wayne don't go all bleeding heart for the poor overtaxed public. We are doing alright.

Show us your science then Wayne. Obviously all the scientists of the world that got degrees and PhDs studying and devoting their lives to this stuff are idiots or tossers with an agenda. So show us your science. Why are you right and they (who study it) are all wrong? What can you see that all those science buffoons have all missed?

Tell me how you can possibly think that the population change shown in this graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg
and the associated clearing of trees, resource use, pollution/emissions, etc, cannot have a serious and devastating effect of one kind or another.

Whether it global warming or something else, it is entirely unsustainable so why fight the people trying to get people/goverments to worry and change their habits? Who cares what approach they use? Or do you really think we should just carry on regardless?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne don't go all bleeding heart for the poor overtaxed public. We are doing alright.

Show us your science then Wayne. Obviously all the scientists of the world that got degrees and PhDs studying and devoting their lives to this stuff are idiots or tossers with an agenda. So show us your science. Why are you right and they (who study it) are all wrong? What can you see that all those science buffoons have all missed?

Tell me how you can possibly think that the population change shown in this graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg
and the associated clearing of trees, resource use, pollution/emissions, etc, cannot have a serious and devastating effect of one kind or another.

Whether it global warming or something else, it is entirely unsustainable so why fight the people trying to get people/goverments to worry and change their habits? Who cares what approach they use? Or do you really think we should just carry on regardless?

Nashezzz

Will you please carefully re-read my posts on this matter and review your post?

 

[Smurf1976]

A question for all:

Do you expect that there will actually be a voluntary reduction (globally) in greenhouse gas emissions?

A simple question. Are we going to cut emissions or not. Not should we or shouldn't we, but will we cut emissions.

My own opinion is "No". I don't believe that emissions will actually be reduced other than due to factors that were going to happen anyway (oil runs out, geothermal simply ends up being cheaper than coal).

 

[2020hindsight]

A question for all:

A simple question. Are we going to cut emissions or not. Not should we or shouldn't we, but will we cut emissions.

Or put another way ... are we intelligent enough to sort out such problems

Or if you prefer..

Is there such a thing as an intelligent independently minded lemming?

 

[wayneL]

A question for all:

Do you expect that there will actually be a voluntary reduction (globally) in greenhouse gas emissions?

A simple question. Are we going to cut emissions or not. Not should we or shouldn't we, but will we cut emissions.

My own opinion is "No". I don't believe that emissions will actually be reduced other than due to factors that were going to happen anyway (oil runs out, geothermal simply ends up being cheaper than coal).

Judging by the way IPCC "scientists" and associated gravy trane-ers... and indeed their disciples conduct their affairs - nope.

Need we look any further than the example of Al Bore?

 

[Nashezz]

Nashezzz

Will you please carefully re-read my posts on this matter and review your post?

I did, and I missed what you wanted me to see

I just don't understand how you can say that all the scientists producing this kind of stuff are self-interested nincompoops - how could that possibly be true. I know plenty of scientific people and not one of the people I know would generate a hypothesis merely to prop up a job for themselves - let alone a conspiracy amongst vast numbers of them.

I found the link you provided about ice cores very interesting but I am not sure why that one article, or others similar, are worth so much more to you then other scientific reports that support AGW theory. Has, as Tim Flannery pointed out, tat article been peer reviewed by other scientists to make sure that what you are presented with in that article is not misleading? For myself, I am prepared to go with the vast majority of scientific belief at the moment because

a) while I have a scientific background I know SFA about climate or meterological science
b) AGW actually makes sense to me in my brain as I can't fathom our vast population and its associated pollution and forest removal not having some massive effect.

 

[rederob]

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.

What I really enjoy is the definitive nature of poorly informed responses.
1998 was the hottest year of last century if I correctly recall, and the 90s was the warmest decade since reliable weather records have been kept.
Not surprisingly there was always going to be a chance that temperatures might decline for a very short while.

Scientists are concerned that greenhouses gases - principally CO2 and methane - are at the highest levels recorded: Which is particularly alarming given that they are using data from various sampling techniques that goes back over 40,000 years.

We know that man had a very small footprint on the greenhouse gas front pre-industrial era. We would be foolish to believe that "nature" alone has given rise to present greenhouse gas levels far beyond those of years ago.

Some argue that methane from animals has always been a contributor to greenhouses gases and that we shouldn't be concerned given animals have inhabited the earth for longer than humans. Unfortunately they fail to understand that the number of animals bred and pastured for human consumption has increased dramatically, and at a faster rate than human population growth. The global per capita consumption of meat continues to rise.

Scientists know that greenhouse gas levels correlate strongly positively with global warming. They know that present levels are off the scales compared to any time they have been able to determine from available information. Worse, they know that CO2 takes several hundreds of years to "disappear" from the atmosphere. And they know that warmer temperatures unlock natural stores of methane.

Man continues to pander to economic interests despite a body of information that puts the earth on a collision course with climatic mayhem. The folly here is that when - and not if - sea levels start to rise at an alarming pace it will be too late implement the measures advocated for years that could have stalled the inevitable.

 

[wayneL]

Man continues to pander to economic interests despite a body of information that puts the earth on a collision course with climatic mayhem. The folly here is that when - and not if - sea levels start to rise at an alarming pace it will be too late implement the measures advocated for years that could have stalled the inevitable.

:sleeping:

What I really "enjoy" is all the tut tutting and lecturing of the AGW lobby from this position of poisonous obnoxious hypocrisy.

As I keep asking, AGWers; what are you doing about it? From what I see, sweet **** all, as Smurf also observes.

My position as a person interested in sustainability covers more that co2. I guarantee yo that my carbon footprint is smaller than 99% of you AGW whingers and whiners.

And you know what? I frankly sick of the sanctimonious lecturing of IPCC bureaucrats, politicians and AGW freaks who drive big cars, have big boats, live in a big house with air conditioning, pop out children and train them to consume like themselves, perpetuating the rape and pillage of this planet.

So don't lecture me hypocrites, go lead by example.

My position is that the IPCC is wrong and the science is BS, but let's get save the planet anyway. co2 is a diversion, there are other pressing issues like the trashing of the ocean, deforestation, mass extinctions, soil degradation, DU contamination etc etc.

Watch this for example:



Missus and I decided not to have children, live in a modest home, drive as little as possible, eat a sustainable diet (nearly vego) work pro-actively in the environment movement, support environmental causes etc.

Only to be lectured by absolute tossers like Polly Toynbee about reducing carbon from her large energy hungry mansion and villa in Italy which she jets to regularly. Only for governments to see it as a taxation bonanza rather than some real action.

So let's see some action from you people! Failing that you can all **** off and I'll go and enjoy my money and buy big houses, cars, boats etc and I'll live out my years in luxury like IPCC delegates.

 

[rederob]

My position is that the IPCC is wrong and the science is BS, but let's get save the planet anyway. co2 is a diversion, there are other pressing issues like the trashing of the ocean, deforestation, mass extinctions, soil degradation, DU contamination etc etc.

The debate should not be "all or nothing".
And it's reasonable to expect proponents of AGW to lead by example: That not all do does not make the science wrong.

My concern is that manmade events tend to have the "supertanker effect". That is, we know it has to be turned around, but it won't happen soon. On the climate change front my fear is that we have already unlocked Pandora's box and it's now just a matter of time.

Our western cultures promote consumerism and thrive on it. There is no incentive for thrift or sustainability, indeed, the opposite.

We have suffered leadership of deferral, denial, and duplicity. The latter notably through lip service to sustainable energy practices while pouring hundreds of millions into carbon-based energy research.

By the way, at a different level - that is on the water restrictions front, where we live - our household of 4 over the age of 15 years uses less water in total than the current 170 litre per person campaign. That will decrease further when we install a rainwater tank in the new year that will plumb into the system.

 

[Pat]

The science is not BS.

What separates our planet from our 3 terrestrial neighbors is liquid water and an atmosphere with minimal CO2. The CO2 difference is explained by the effect of life.
CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving.

Billions of years ago the CO2 was slowly removed from the atmosphere by the life on this planet, life being plants and micro organisms, and stored in the earth as carbon (oil/coal/forests/etc).

Now days we are removing the life from the planet that removes this carbon from the oxygen and we are also putting all this carbon from the ground back into the atmosphere.

For the the hypothesis of AGW to be BS you would have to disprove this point- "CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving."

or

We just ain't releasing a whole lot of CO2. Now thats BS.

The rest is all pretty solid scientific theory.

 

[Nashezz]

Wayne,

If it makes you feel better, me and my wife try and lead sustainable lives as well.

 

[Smurf1976]

CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving.

If I recall correctly, light goes straight through but heat is trapped by CO2 (just like a car with the windows heats up if parked in the sun).

I did some experiments with this one years ago and, in the lab at least, CO2 did indeed lead to higher temperatures than the normal atmosphere under otherwise identical conditions.

 

[2020hindsight]

I did some experiments with this one years ago and, in the lab at least, CO2 did indeed lead to higher temperatures than the normal atmosphere under otherwise identical conditions.

I'm guessing you agree with the theory that CO2 leads to warming, smurf

:topic all good stuff -
like old fashioned polarised glasses that can see the fish under the water
I did some work with polarised light in a lab a few years back as well.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm guessing you agree with the theory that CO2 leads to warming, smurf

I understand the theory that increased CO2 would lead to warming of the planet. In theory, that is what should happen to my understanding.

What I do NOT agree with however is this:

1. Linking every undesirable weather event with CO2.

That's rubbish, not science. Right now here in Tassie we've got serious drought in the NE and close to flooding in the West. Nothing unusual there, it's a reasonably common situation that all those river flow guages have been recording for close to a century.

It's nonsense to try and claim that's proof of climate change caused by CO2 - there's nowhere near enough data to base such a claim on. All it proves is what's been known for years - (1) rainfall in Tasmania is most reliable in the SW and least reliable in the NE and (2) cloud seeding makes it rain more in targeted areas.

2. Any linkage with overall cooling of the Earth and claiming that this is somehow linked to CO2.

Cooling quite simply does not fit with the theory. It's not a question of "climate change", it's "global warming" pure and simple. If it's not warming then quite simply reality isn't matching the theory.

3. The notion that the point source of CO2 emissions is in any way relevant.

The theory says it's atmospheric concentration, not what goes up any individual stack, that matters. It's politics at its worst to claim that shifting a few smelters from Queensland to, say, China will save the Barrier Reef from CO2-induced climate change. That's a political and economic strategy, not an environmental one, that would actually make the situation worse due to greater shipping volumes.

4. Attempts to link all sorts of non-CO2 environmental issues to the global warming issue.

Installing a water tank, for example, means you've just added rather a lot of CO2 in order to mine the materials, make the tank and transport it to your house. I'm not against water tanks, but the notion that installing one is doing something to solve the CO2 problem is rubbish. In most cases building a large dam is a lower CO2 and far cheaper option by most calculations - tanks make sense only when that's not an option.

5. The notion that somthing is actually being done to reduce CO2 emissions.

No it's not. A few token gestures here and there maybe, but overall it's not just business as usual but rapid expansion for the fossil fuel industries. No amount of political lies change this reality - global emissions are heading higher, not lower.

6. Unwillingness to accept the consequences of recucing CO2 emissions.

If we'd had current thinking on CO2 for the past 40 year then it's almost certain that the nuclear and hydro debates in particular would have had very different outcomes.

Good luck for anyone who wants to argue against dams when even the Greens have ended up using the term "clean green hydro". Likewise it's no secret that the CO2 issue is the only thing that's given the nuclear industry in Australia anything close to public support.

 

[2020hindsight]

we disagree m8 ,
I have no reason to doubt the IPCC....
and in any case, I refuse to gamble with this matter.

btw, this isn't a matter of whether a few of us (or Al Gore) turns the bathroom light out or leaves it on all night. It's whether the entire world changes attitude, changes energy sources, demand management, nuclear, massive grids for more efficient off-peak etcetc .

btw here's what John Denver's mate (Buckminster Fuller) thought about it way back when ... (already posted elsewhere)-


What if? A New Global Option - Part 1

The song "What One Man Can Do" is about John's good friend and mentor Buckminster Fuller.

Fuller was president of Mensa. Mensa is an exclusive club - only people in the 98th percentile of IQ in the community need apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

Richard Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller (July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)[1] was an American architect, author, designer, futurist, inventor, and visionary. He was the second president of Mensa.[2] .....

Throughout his life, Fuller was concerned with the question "Does humanity have a chance to survive lastingly and successfully on planet Earth, and if so, how?"[citation needed] Considering himself an average individual without special monetary means or academic degree,[3] he chose to devote his life to this question, trying to identify what he, as an individual, could do to improve humanity's condition, which large organizations, governments, and private enterprises inherently could not do.

Pursuing this lifelong experiment, Fuller wrote more than thirty books, coining and popularizing terms such as "Spaceship Earth", ephemeralization, and synergetics. He also worked in the development of numerous inventions, chiefly in the fields of design and architecture, the best known of which is the geodesic dome...

PS Note that "mid-latitude storm tracks are shifting poleward" - it's true !! A friend does a lot of sailing , been doing so for 40 years - he's noticed it, no question ..

And there is your drought in Tas straight away.

PS These are from a PowerPoint on the IPCC website..

 

[2020hindsight]

PS Here's Bucky Fuller's global energy grid btw. (trouble is , as drawn , it has to go through Alaska ) )
Got Bucky's chance of getting it past Palin.

PS - getting back to more "normal" action on GW/CC - (reduction of CO2 through carbon trading schemes etc ) - some brilliant side benefits with the global effort - slowing the felling of forests ( the lungs of the planet), reforestation, animal habitat, etc etc . Support it for that if nothing else Support Copenhagen ! - When next will you get the ears of the ENTIRE WORLD to act on ANYTHING - so it's not perfect in your view - accept it as near enough - a step in the right direction, etc.

"one small step for mankind, one giant leap for the other co-habitants of this planet" etc

 

[Calliope]

The rest is all pretty solid scientific theory.

Solid scientific theory Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.