Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[numbercruncher]

These sum it up for me



Temperature rise

 

[numbercruncher]

I reckon this green trend will blow over and everyone will return to their usual consumerist ways.

Im sure someone in New Orleans said that exact same sentence the day before Katrina rolled into disco

Im sure Karma dictates that the US is going to cop more of the same if they dont buck up their Ideas .... ( Im convinced they will with the ousting of Johnnys mate)

 

[2020hindsight]

These sum it up for me


View attachment 16181
Temperature rise

nc... Here are some more (similar) graphs.

btw, the poll has finished as of this evening. Herewith a table of similar USA and "world" polls on the same/similar subject.

I would comment that the percent saying "PROVEN, urgent!" started at about 55%, and slowly came down to 48% as more people voted for "UNPROVEN, but act anyway". So I would conclude that

a) the "converted" needed no preaching to - and voted early; and
b) others have semi-reluctantly come on board, but voted UNPROVEN

how good is wiki !!
and how good is this website !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
It's a really long read ok. - but gee does it contain some great effort and real gems. Wiki is bludy brilliant.

[edit] History of public opinion
In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1990 Kyoto Protocol, and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990 (for example, Margaret Thatcher advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988[1] and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in 1983). Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by languagemonitor.com as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005.[2] In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[3][4]

I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.

m8 - lol
trouble is I take seriously the policy that you can only post on trading if you are certain what you are talking about I also try to let my "bets" ride without incurring too many brokerage fees - once my bets are on, I tend to leave em be : 2twocents

(Then again , - and this one is a massive joke ok ! lol - sometimes I feel that I'd be accused of insider trading - only to find that what I would have done with my "inside knowledge" as it were - goes legs up in 10 seconds lol.)

I also believe that you don't go into a casino (or ASX) if you are gonna bitch if you lose

fwiw. I'm currently holding BHP and MAH and a few others - the last few weeks have been a bludy disaster - but what the heck - that's life in the fast lane

PS - lol - another reason I post on non-trading rather than trading ? - so that I am forced to leave my bludy bets alone - let em ride , lol !!

 

[numbercruncher]

Wayne,


Since becoming familar with your personality here at ASF, and i know your also in the pro assist the climate/planet camp, Im not really surprised with your criticisms of Gore, but I am rather surprised that you are so critical of him.

Surely some credit is deserved, I mean he could of acheived considerable wealth , perhaps not fame , in any or many other chosen fields ?

I mean most of us here are litle guys in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me Gore has popularised Climate change, the best I can do is change my personal habits, hope some redneck reads one of my posts and "thinks", and most Importantly educate my own children, but educating our children doesnt usher in change nearly fast enough.

 

[2020hindsight]

how good is wiki !!
and how good is this website !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
It's a really long read ok. - but gee does it contain some great effort and real gems. Wiki is bludy brilliant.

Also from that website ...
I reckon this is a brilliant summary (and extremely fair to both sides) :-

As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:

The social and environmental impacts
The appropriate response to climate change
Whether decisions require less uncertainty
The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:

“ Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine." ... [The] point is that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been--globally averaged, we're talking--fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. (Stephen H. Schneider[118]) ”

The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.

Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who feel strongly that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.[119] They claim that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.[120]

“ The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the United States is as clear as it can be. And it is required for the way we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and for our future. Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer, President of Western Fuels Association [120]) ”

Conversely, others feel strongly that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.[98]

Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into consideration other potential impacts of any change.

 

[numbercruncher]

I agree 2020 its a good read that wiki page, I linked it a few pages back in this thread with a quote to one of the denyer crowd and he dismissed it as bias because of the page title lol, oh well cant convince the unconvincable ive always reckoned ....

 

[Julia]

I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.

Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.

 

[2020hindsight]

I agree 2020 its a good read that wiki page, I linked it a few pages back in this thread with a quote to one of the denyer crowd and he dismissed it as bias because of the page title lol, oh well cant convince the unconvincable ive always reckoned ....

nc,
well - when you posted it, you forget to mention it was a five hour read lol

no wonder they "denied all knowledge" lol

I think you'll agree that they go out of their way to put forward the best scientific evidence. - including what has and what hasn't been peer-reviewed. - I mean , someone has done a lot of work on that site - sheesh. I challenge anyone here to come up with 10% of that stuff.

I'll post some examples - but I don't really expect anyone to read em
(except maybe you and wys and billhill and spooly and ... a few others lol)

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[23][24][25] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."[28]

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities [14] or risk losing funding.

The IPCC
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.[49]

While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming. [61] Climate scientist James Hansen argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters””enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida.[62]

The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m ² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m ² for the net anthropogenic forcing.[81] The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades." [82] The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure

It is well known that populated areas are warmer than rural areas. Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise.[citation needed] The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.

More recently, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre have criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others have criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States [88] [89]. In response, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.[90] Based on the work of Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. The higher quality stations indicate the warmest years in the U.S. were 1934 and 1921, followed by 1998 and 2006. [14] McIntyre has made all of his methods, data and code available for others to reproduce his findings. McIntyre's analysis has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration. This value is estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C.”

However, The Stern report, like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO2 levels, concluding that:

“ Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO2 well beyond 750ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.[98] ”

According to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet’s available fossil fuels by the year 2300."[99]

Arctic specialist Mark Serreze said, following the record low in 2007,[102] "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate

 

[Smurf1976]

Sorry 2020,

Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure). Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.

Methane emissions depends on what (other than water) is in the storage. If you've got lots of biomass then there will be methane. No biomass and you won't have methane emissions.

Easy solution is to remove the biomass first. We're not about to stop using wood and if an area is to be flooded for a storage then logging it first is sensible.

Various studies in Tasmania have shown that, in general, methane emissions form the hydro storages are not large relative to the power produced. That's because not that much biomass has been flooded in creating the lakes.

Another key point is durability. Morinna power station is 100 years old. It's still working fine. Likewise plenty of other old hydro plants either still working fine or would be if they hadn't been superseded by larger plants using the same water.

Lake Margaret is another example. It operated continuously 1914 - 2006 and is planned to be back in full operation around 2010. The dam and machinery is all still good (minor repairs needed to 1 (of 7) turbine). Only trouble is the wooden pipeline thinned out, was losing 10% of its flow due to leaks everywhere and became unsafe hence it was shut down. Once the old pipe is removed and a new one built (which will take a while since it's being done "the old way" using timber to preserve the heritage and tourism values of the scheme) it will be good as new. There's no reason why the scheme shouldn't still be working in another 100 or even 1000 years time.

So any consideration of hydro power methane emissions needs to be in view of the reality that any such emissions are temporary as vegetation rots whereas the power is, in practice, virtually forever.

As for eventually dismantling the dams, yes it can be done reasonably easily. Even no dams guru Bob Brown has publicly acknowledged that the damage done to the environment is, in practice, reversible on a reasonable timescale of a few decades at most. Contrast that with the effectively permanent, and far more dangerous, mess left by fossil fuels and nuclear.

 

[2020hindsight]

Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.

...

the logic of the market?
so I knew early that one of the Pilbara mining companies had a bad time during last year's cylones - so I sold - since then their shares have headed north like a homesick angel as they say lol - .
don't talk to me about predicting the bludy market
(and believe me, you don;t want to follow my advise on investing lol)

PS Julia
must be your turn to feed the jukebox with a song on "tunes".

 

[numbercruncher]

Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.

Youve got to admit the market is pretty boring atm , to much doom and gloom , may as well concentrate on some other pressing issues

 

[professor_frink]

.........

"If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can,"

ok - I'm gonna accuse you of being either
a) childless, or
b) selfish, or
c) unconcerned whether "life" goes on on this planet after say 2100 lol. (and please don;t argue that the cockroackes or the dung beetles might survive etc). "Life handed down" should mean "life as handed to us" should it not !

"because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5

spot on - as I posted elsewhere, (ex IPCC source) most probably, if we stopped making ALL co2 NOW - the best prediction is that world would still be warming in the year 2100. Question is does it to get to 5 degree or 10 or 15 etc degrees hotter etc.

How can you take 1 comment I've made, chop it up into 2 pieces, call me selfish AND agree with it. You say that we will probably lose the Great Barrier reef due to man made global warming in our lifetime, AND that if we stopped emitting right now, the planet would still be warming in 2100. If 2+2=4, we can't save it based off what YOU said. How can I possibly be selfish for drawing conclusions based on comments made by the pro AGW crowd?????

I'll make this my last post in this thread 2020 and leave you to it. I've cast my vote, had a rant or two, and will leave it at that. I seem to have spent an awful lot of time looking into this topic recently and have basically come to the conclusion that I don't have the intelligence to sift through the large amounts of information that is out there and figure out what's actually happening, especially considering I don't have any formal education in this area. I congratulate those of you that have been able to do so. You are all quite a bit smarter than I am

Think I stick to my punting, sorry, trading, and leave the political debate to the rest of you

 

[2020hindsight]

How can you take 1 comment I've made, chop it up into 2 pieces, call me selfish AND agree with it. You say that we will probably lose the Great Barrier reef due to man made global warming in our lifetime, AND that if we stopped emitting right now, the planet would still be warming in 2100. If 2+2=4, we can't save it based off what YOU said. How can I possibly be selfish for drawing conclusions based on comments made by the pro AGW crowd?????

touche.

 

[chops_a_must]

That's not really answering the question 2020. But I wasn't really expecting you too, as I already knew the answer, I just wanted to bring it up though
It seems to be something that is brushed over pretty consistently by the "green" movement. Mainly due to the fact that radioactive waste is anything but green. But then again, so is uranium mining.

I don't know of any genuine environmental groups that advocate the nuclear option as a real alternative. Because the mining process is so environmentally destructive by itself / has more environmental dangers than other mining. It seems to just be used as a phoney environmental policy by conservative politicians. However, a lot of environmental groups see nuclear as an unfortunate necessity in a small number of countries...

 

[2020hindsight]

well to me it's a simple question.

GBR* (etc etc ) or nuclear power?
(* at least some remnants of the GBR, which might repair with time - or in any case, maybe avoid armageddon)

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

Nuclear power is a type of nuclear technology involving the controlled use of nuclear fission to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy is produced by a controlled nuclear chain reaction and creates heat—which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity.

As of 2004, nuclear power provided 6.5% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 57% of nuclear generated electricity.[1] As of 2007, the IAEA reported there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[2] operating in 31 countries.[3]

The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006.[4][5] In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity.[6] Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, and some, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 in current use.

Many military and some civilian (such as some icebreaker) ships use nuclear marine propulsion, a form of nuclear propulsion[7]

International research is continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants[8], the use of nuclear fusion, and additional uses of process heat such as the hydrogen production (in support of a hydrogen economy), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems.

Allegedly (according to wiki) Aus is considering its first plant
Also Historical and projected world energy use by energy source, 1980-2030, Source: International Energy Outlook 2007, EIA. (coal charging upwards, both in total , and in percentage ):-

PS (unless we do something about it of course)

 

[2020hindsight]

But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.

What are you doing 20?

wayne, since you don't want to talk about changing the course of national thinking (about fossil fuels)

or voting out dinosaurs like Howard who refuse to sign Kyoto

and prefer to concentrate on individuals walking etc

then I suddenly realise how we can resolve this
next time we meet , we can have a long distance race. Presumably the one who has been doing the most walking / running instead of driving will be the winner ?

I used to run to the shop when I was a kid, and have done so ever since. I was captain of (one of the) Army cross country teams. - and purely because I would run to the shop, post office, any other message I was sent on, every day of my bludy life. And still prefer to walk that drive if I can .

happy ny

 

[Smurf1976]

As another general principle, one of the worst things for any sort of marketing (and lets face it GW is being marketed) is overkill.

Pound that message too hard and folks just turn off. I think there is a real danger of that already occurring (in true American fashion). Most people I speak to who accept GW as fact, accept it as fait accompli.

They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."

I'm very much a "fight to the end" sort of person but when it comes to global warming, I accept it as inevitable for practical purposes.

Why? Because the ONLY way it will be stopped is with a complete transformation of energy supply to 100% non-CO2 emitting sources or alternatively a complete reworking of the banking system.

Given that there is basically no support whatsoever (outside a few engineers and renewable energy companies etc) for the former, that leaves a banking revolution as the only hope.

Even environmentally focused political parties generally support a continuation of constant growth in fossil fuel use, albeit in a somewhat disguised manner, so there's no real hope for a real shift to renewables that actually cuts emissions. At least not unless business chooses to leave politicians the world over in the dust - possible but not probable.

As for the ordinary man on the street, a quick visit to the TV section of any Harvey Norman etc store will quickly reveal that Joe Average doesn't give a damn about climate change. Simply standing on the street corner watching the sort of cars they drive, and how they drive them, will have the same effect - actions speak a LOT louder than the empty words most utter on the subject.

That over 90% of Australians choose to use fossil fuels to heat water when cleaner options are affordable for most says all we need to know about the average person's concern for the climate. It's stuff all really.

 

[2020hindsight]

That over 90% of Australians choose to use fossil fuels to heat water when cleaner options are affordable for most says all we need to know about the average person's concern for the climate. It's stuff all really.

smurf - you remind me
how easy is it to have a bank of black pvc pipes up on the roof ?- the cheapest solar hot water system you're gonna find


(Ps I don't follow your banking revolution - but my bank manager is revolting - does that help ?)

 

[numbercruncher]

Spare a thought for Perth today, Hottest December day on Record and scary bushfires

 

[numbercruncher]

QUEENSLANDERS are the highest producers of greenhouse gas in the world, emitting 38.9 tonnes per person every year – nearly eleven tonnes more than the Australian average, a first-ever audit has found.

The audit, undertaken by the Wet Tropics Management Authority between Cooktown and Cardwell, offers stark warning about the threats of climate change.
Scientists have warned the Great Barrier Reef may be dead within 20 years and one of the world's most ancient rainforests in the Daintree faces extinction under just a few degrees of global warming.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22970274-952,00.html

Ok, someone needs to have a long hard word with Queenslanders !