numbercruncher
Beware of Dropbears
- Joined
- 12 October 2006
- Posts
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 1
I reckon this green trend will blow over and everyone will return to their usual consumerist ways.
nc... Here are some more (similar) graphs.
[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]
m8 - lolI`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.
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.
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.
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.
nc,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 ....
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
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.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.
...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.
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.
.........
"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.
touche.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 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...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.
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.
But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.
What are you doing 20?
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.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."
smurf - you remind meThat 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?