This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

  • There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

    Votes: 8 5.2%

  • There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

    Votes: 12 7.8%

  • Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

    Votes: 46 30.1%

  • There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

    Votes: 6 3.9%

  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%

  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • Total voters
    153
Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
btw, Note the bit about ... if we stopped making CO2e NOW, the earth would still be warming in 2100.

This is the Titanic we are trying to turn around here...
Click to expand...


Exactly ! Pretty scary really.

Need stop population Growth for a start, China is very comendable in this area.

Capatalism needs a whole rethink, Its too dependant on Growth, without growth it seems destined to collapse on itself .... clocks ticking

When you think about it, society doesnt need everyone working producing consuming poluting .... people should be encouraged to not work not produce not reproduce .... as long as they are self sufficent, theres np! Maybe Socialism is the only concept compatable with halting our problems ? ,,
 

Its strange, the one thing that can save the planet is a good old fashions recession.... but guess what... the US feds are busy slashing interest rates and injecting liquidity so we can keep growing

But given that no one is happy with anyone that imposes any sort of financial hardship.... (i.e. recession we had to have, floating dollar, gst, heck... even work choices, increase in water / electricity costs...)... what hope is there, for anything usefull to happen!

And as for socialism...

Socialism is probably the biggest cause of global warming, lot more than capitalism... with things such as welfare, cheap healthcare, unionised workforces, (i.e. no slaves) etc people who should have fallen off the end of the conveyor belt a long long time ago are bloody still out there consuming and polluting

(hows that for some controversy for a friday afternoon... )

ps: If i am going to be quoted, please quote in entirety so the context is understood... hehehe
 

ok can i jsut say to you extend your data range...dont focus on 100 years or a thousand years.. go even further back... trends emerge when u look back thosands even millions of years... what are these trends... that cliamte change is cyclical and weve had far worse 'global warming' in this earths past..

can someone tell me what the big deal is about the temp going up 0.2-0.8 degrees...seriously we are in a period of earths history known as the holocene period categorised by relatively stable temperature patterns... all climate change is cyclical and the sooner you "mainstreamers" realise and stop picking and choosing ur data ranges the better
 

well white
one of us keeps pickin and choosin our range that's for sure lol

you just keep going back and back...
and in so doing (imo) you are just making your argument that we should do nothing now-here-today (!!) less and less meaningful / relevant.

Here's that graph going back 10K years (from GGW swindle video) - seems to me we are almost at the holecene maximum - trouble is we are heading uphill bigtime.

RAPID climate change is worse that moderate rate of change agreed? plants and animals cannot adapt fast enough. Nor can coral growth keep up with rising sea levels. etc .

If you are saying that solar activity drives this - then have a look at the strange divergence between solar activity and global temp of late. See if you are still so confident you can explain things using "non-human-interference" explanations.

PS Please don't tell me I have to go back more than 10,000 years

PS Here's the same graph in effect showing solar activity possibly explaining things to 1970 - but since then we are in "unchartered waters" and cannot explain temp rise other than "manmade" ...
2020hindsight said:
Attenborough
here's a quick summary
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • holecene%20maxima%20-bronze%20age.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 101
  • solar%20data%20divergence.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 102

Most people aren't going to look back that far- it would be devastating to the pro AGW case! And that wouldn't be popular at all.(2020, it would be appreciated if you don't make any comments about how I could care less about animals becoming extinct now that I've said that)


However, I'm surprised you don't seem concerned by the possibility of it getting quite a bit wamer though- what is just a short term spike on a chart that extends back a couple of hundred million years ago would be pretty devastating to life on the planet as it exists now(man made or not is largely irrelevant- it won't be pleasant either way)

Sure, it has been warmer than it is presently, and it has been quite a bit cooler than it is now too, but the chances of most of the human population surviving if we all have to try and move to greenland/Siberia are pretty slim.

If it does get that warm quickly, I think us Aussies would be in a little bit of trouble- think most of the good spots in the northern hemisphere will be taken before we get there. Hopefully, Antarctica will be pleasant if it happens- us and the kiwis could get down there pretty quick, though I imagine there would be a pretty vicious war if Australia and New Zealand tried living on the same patch of land

2020,

not sure of the validity of this website(I'm sure I'm about to be told that it's funded by exxon), but there are heaps of graphs going back quite a bit more than 10,000 years.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
 
professor_frink said:
not sure of the validity of this website(I'm sure I'm about to be told that it's funded by exxon), but there are heaps of graphs going back quite a bit more than 10,000 years.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
Click to expand...
frink - I'll look at it later - I notice it goes back to the dinosaurs - 65 million years etc - and then some.
(very comforting lol)

As they say, too much brawn, and not enough brain -
though as for that, the asteroid impact incident didn't help.
At least the Swiss , with their nuclear shelters in their houses ( not sure if they are still compulsory but they were once) , will maybe emerge from one of those. :2 twocents

In that there are heaps of graphs there, maybe someone could print the one that they think is relevant ? ( I personally don't think anything that old is particularly relevant :2 twocents )

I was more thinking about whether my grandkids would forgive me in 50 years time, lol

The bad news, in 100 years they'll blame us for not acting faster and more dramatically; also the fact that modern man is getting obese, his body will give off more CO2E I assume (?);

the good news? in 100 years from now, we'll be too busy stoking fires in Hell to notice a bit of global warming up topside. ) :evilburn:

PS read into this one as you may ... :bonk:

Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed (animals and even) humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Click to expand...

Sure m8 - the trick was to sacrifice the stupid ones :viking:
 
coincidence that mars and earth are heating up at pretty much exactly the same rate... must be all those probes we send there polluting the joint
 
I am amazed that tempers have not flared here yet...

The evidence freaks are claiming they need proof in the form of science.

Has it not been the case in science for time memorial that "theory" (ie Darwin, Einstein, Newton to name a few) as the current best explaination/ best guess in so many cases has been taken as fact until the technology to define and therefore measure "catches up" and proves or disproves these theories?

Based on the possible risks, would we not be safer in accepting and acting upon Global warming as science's current theory and treating it as fact until the ability comes to disprove the theory?

Whitegoods and B seem to have this idea that because of their "idealistic opinions" they have the need/want/urge/right to stop the rest of the world acting to change something which is currently the belief of a majority of the world's scientists within the related disciplines.

It's a little bit like standing in a hole and not seeing the gas because it's not coloured but telling everyone there's nothing to worry about because they haven't got proof its happening...
 
2020hindsight said:
Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed (animals and even) humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Click to expand...
I mean that is such an insensitive comment from a man of the cloth -
you want to see some animals (and even humans) sacrificed on the altar of human stupidity ... and assuming you haven't seen enough in the current and recent droughts ... just wait a few more years
 


Arguably this has already happened, lets think past draughts and think Floods of Asia, California fires, Hurricane Katrina etc etc etc ..... Enviromental refugee is going to be a biggy in the future me thinks


Heres an Extremist Scientist with a "solution"


http://www.zoliblog.com/2006/04/2/dr-doom-plans-to-save-earth-by-wiping-out-90%25-of-humans/

Whoa there is a new concept, we have Religous terrorists, maybe there is Enviromental terrorists a lurking too ?
 
OK folks!

An agreement to have future talks about an agreement to limit emissions by 25-40% by 2020 has finally been agreed to in Bali. Therefore, regardless of where you sit on the fence, *something* might just happen with regard to a shift to a lower emissions lifestyle in the near/medium future.

So, what is the outlook for Oz alternative energy companies now? Does this *faux* agreement amount to anything more than "hot air"? Hopefully, the mere fact that Uncle Sammy ACTUALLY BACKED DOWN AT ALL to the watered down agreement might be seen as a positive sign.... but will that be enough to *energise* the alternatives sector?

Chiz,

AJ
 
Yes that agreement is just weak and rather pathetic, Im not sure any of the other US candidates have a strong Climate Change plan do they ? Rest of the world should just gang up on the US and say sure do what ever you want, but face the carbon tax on your exports.
 
No scientists reject the cyclical nature of climate adjusments.
What most are now saying is that the pace of change is too rapid to be explained by nature alone. (see, for example: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDFNYIToh6q3mS6UDO8p3g0w2Xyw)
I believe Bali will be seen as too little too late in 20 years time.
Western economies that have spewed out incredible emissions over the past century have been unwilling to compromise because third world countries are now doing what they did (albeit 100 years later).
You, the average reader of this post, can make a real (although small) contribution to reducing emissions by using less electricity, using public transport, and driving the car only when it's essential.
There are about 4 billion people who don't have those options.
They would like to have electricity (even running water), and might aspire to owning a car, but probably never will in their lifetime.
And we want to impose on their nations targets they can have no influence over!
Rudd's stance on the details at Bali is uninspiring - I think quite pathetic - and smacks of the ongoing hypocrisy western economies bring to this debate.
The US remains highly critical of China yet its new investment in hydro, nuclear and solar is so far ahead of the US it makes a mockery of their stance.
In a few year's time we won't have to worry too much about government inaction as the oil paradigm we rely on for our present lifestyles will set another, less arbitrary, agenda for change.
 
Lots of people praise China here, and I know they deserve praise in some areas, but lets be honest, 80pc of Chinas electricity comes from Coal fired plants, they are shockers.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1265343.ece

Best thing China is doing for Climate change is reducing its population over time with the one child policy, need a few more Countries to follow suit, imho.

Australia is in a perfect position here, force through Clean coal technologys such as what ESI does for example.


China’s energy growth simply has no precedent in the world… Consider that just the growth in China’s energy requirements from 2002-2005 (over 105 Gigawatts) was equivalent to the current annual energy demand of Japan.
Click to expand...

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/newsdetails.php?id=4258

Both China and US (+others) are the biggest part of the problem and obviously the most important part of the solution.
 
numbercruncher said:
im not sure any of the other US candidates have a strong Climate Change plan do they ?
Click to expand...

As far as i know McCain, Obama and Clinton have pledged a cap and trade on carbon emissions. Surprisingly for a republican McCain seems to have the strongest emphasis on doing something about climate change. But then again Arnold Schwartznegger who is republican has a policy as aggressive as the europeans.
 
numbercruncher said:
Lots of people praise China here, and I know they deserve praise in some areas, but lets be honest, 80pc of Chinas electricity comes from Coal fired plants, they are shockers.
Click to expand...
And what are the emissions per capita?

The fact remains China has a percentage of installed power generation coming from renewable sources, which is greater than just about every western country. And as long as that keeps increasing, I fail to see the problem.
 

Im not sure on the per capita emissions, but cant be too high considering factory workers earn 50 cents an hour.

Problem is Climate Change is a problem of epic proportions, sure if their renewables keep increasing thats great, but non renewable emissions are rising like 8x faster at a time where reducing carbon output is the only game plan.

US = no1 polluter China = no2 polluter , our futures and potentially our survival relies on these guys playing the game, if not, lets gang up on them, World vrs them, only choice imho .... Also just depends how seriously people take Climate Change i guess. Less emissions now for less disasters in the future, seen as we seem addicted to economic growth im tipping disaster (for future gens), but investing in renewable
 
Heres a good link to per capita emissions .....

#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
#6 Luxembourg: 17.977 per 1,000 people
#7 Trinidad and Tobago: 16.8278 per 1,000 people
#8 Australia: 16.5444 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 15.8941 per 1,000 people
#10 Singapore: 13.8137 per 1,000 people
rest on link

www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
Click to expand...

Logically we cant define allowable carbon outputs on countries populations alone, Australia for example, very small population, If the rest of the world wants us to keep supplying them with Wheat, Iron ore , Meat etc etc etc they obviously need us to be higher emitters ..... If they want our emissions lower, stop buying our stuff


The worlds Lowest emitter is Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 0.0123428 per 1,000 people compared to the highest Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people , now just Imagine the potential disaster when the Worlds 4b people with tiny tiny emissions come a banging for the "Western" type lifestyle , wow.
 
China came in at #80 and India at #113.
If Australia had double its present population it would almost match India's total carbon footprint.
Luckily we can still beat them at cricket, even if their coaches are Australian!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Poll on Action on Global Warming
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
11K
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Terminal Triangle: Peak Oil, climate change and global economic meltdown
Replies
7
Views
6K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...