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
Agreed that Australia should be more of a leader with alternative energy technologies.

We were leaders in hydro for years (still are via consulting).

We were leaders in brown coal until the 1980's.

Geothermal is where the new potential for technical leadership exists IMO. Solar too though geothermal has the greatest potential in my view.

Trouble is we're absolutely lacking the vision that made the hydro and brown coal industries happen. Both were done not as simply a means of keeping the lights on but as the basis of a much larger economic strategy. Indeed hydro was Tasmania's only real economic strategy for half a century, a situation that differed in Victoria only due to Melbourne's role as a service centre and the Bass Strait oil fields.

What's stopping us now is the focus on competition and short term costs. Nobody's going to invest in some uncertain capital-intensive project in that environment. Indeed most won't even invest in capital-intensive proven technology that is economically competitive. Everything comes down to capital and especially risk minimisation - they want plants that can literally be packed up and sold, not R&D or something that is fixed in place. Hence all those gas turbines that are cheap to build, expensive to run but able to be relocated without too much fuss.
 
It's snowing in Cheltenham, right now... late March.
 
In addition to IPCC of course, there is Hadley Centre (= UK Met Office) . They employ 1500 people including 200 scientists working on global research.
Heaps of information. - there's a reference there to the gulf stream ( mustve mentioned this one a few times) - that UK temp increase could well be moderated by a partial slow down of the Gulf Stream .

Hence UK is a bit unique. (though that doesn't mean it isn't experiencing increasing temps.

Also they put out that graph I posted back there - with the red and the green graphs - and man responsible for the difference. .

........................

ferret
I challenge you to find some bias, or reason for bias in the UK Met Office.



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
thence to faq's :-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/#faq


THIS IS A "WHAT IF" regarding the Gulf Stream / North Atlantic Drfft - driven by THC = thermohaline circulation (salt concentrations etc ) :-

 

Attachments

  • FAQs.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 58
Furthermore they put out these two graphs :-
One if we start now - where we can limit the increase in global temp to 2 deg C by reducing CO2 output by 1.9% per annum....

and one if we wait for 10 years (start around 2017) - and then we have to reduce by 2.5% per annum .

PS Obviously there are various scenarios.
There is an entire thread around here somewhere that discusses the various options in that regard.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/9_winter_t.html

Predicted Weather Report for 2080 = 72 years hence :-
Repeat - this is a theoretical prediction for 2080 = 72 years hence.

PS THis last stuff is allegedly from the Hadley Centre , but relayed through Channel 4 - who did that scurrelous report (by Durkins) on the Great Global Warming Swindle. - so much for that little exercise in deception

PS The final graph ( as I mentioned in last post) is from the Hadley Centre website - in fact it's what you get if you click on FAQ #3.2 - and it is exactly what David Attenborough ( or Sir David to his mates) - says in that youtube.
Remember now, 1500 employees, including 200 on global climate change. - and they conclude that man is causing the difference between the green and the red graphs.
 

Attachments

  • starting now.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 58
  • starting 2017.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 59
  • AGW1.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 55
I mean whilst Johnny Howard has been stuffing around on this , UK has had an office like this (Hadley Centre), helping businesses (and governments, and the public) understand, mitigate effects, etc .

Obviously with knowledge comes opportunity. Rule of business is " FIND A NEED AND FILL IT " isn't it?

Obviously also, with knowledge, comes the ability to mitigate effects on the environment and on the critters under our charge. !

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/interpret.html

 
what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? how do you put a hole in gas?

sunspots have more influence over the earths temp than GG.
 
what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? how do you put a hole in gas?

sunspots have more influence over the earths temp than GG.

imagine it's the air inside a car tube

metric - that leads on to a good parallel question though.. Did Regulation work on that occasion? - Was it brought in in a timely manner? i.e. before or after it was "too late"?

ok -
We find ozone being depleted
There was a good chance (NOT CERTAIN note) that CFC's were responsible
1978 - Sweden decides to act - human intervention - to protect the planet from deadly UV radiation
followed by USA, Canada, Norway
BUT the rest of Europe refused to act.
"until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985"
CFC's production phased out completely in 1996.
(? - used under licence in critical applcations)

So give it a few lifetimes, it'll all be pristine again
Moral of the story - It's come to the point where man and his dabbling in unusual concentrations of strange chemicals and gases - must be equally proactive in monitoring and combatting their effect on climate !
Either that or learn how to lather up a shave instead of using a pressure pack can etc.

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

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/docs/archives/en/phaseout/surplus3.cfm


As for your second statement - I think that has been addressed in previous posts. - certainly both sunspot activity and greenhouse gases affect temp. - but there's only one of those we can affect right?
 
I'll drag this post here from another thread for a quick comment...


Here's another way to look at the origin of that "rule of 69.3" - ALLEGEDLY this just happens to be the US life expectancy - down sharply from 77 etc
(sorry Kim , i know you didn't claim that , but I'm gonna take some of the claims on that website with a pinch of iodide - or chemtrail or whatever.) - hey I agree with you that that spraying doesn't look real healthy though! no question.

This is from Kimosabi's post on whatever that is they are spraying into the atmosphere ( weird? - cloud seeding of some sort maybe? - just like they are gonna do in Beijing later this year to guarantee good weather ? )

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=269652&highlight=sunspot#post269652

PS Why don't they call it the rule of 69? - I'm guessing their website would be flooded by inquisitive teenagers
"whaat, yu wan gar-rik prawns and corrifrower?" - lol - one of the best on the joke thread that one. )

PS At birth I notice we have life expectancy of 78 for men and 83 for women) http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/data/life_expectancy.cfm

Current world average is 67 yrs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
 

Attachments

  • rule of 69.jpg
    3.8 KB · Views: 51
  • life expentancy usa.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 51
call me cynical if you like, but something just doesnt sit right with me about this sudden GW fanaticism. just for an entertaining exercise let us ask;

IF, GW is a scam;

*who stands to profit from it?
*who is pushing the agenda? (to profit from it)
*are there scientists whom disagree? ( how are they treated by mainstream media)
*what is the single biggest contributor to GW?
*whom is the religion designed to disadvantage? (why)
 
lol -
make it a quick post
I'll call you a cynic

Not sure who is gonna profit by it - probably anyone with the sense to get in on the ground floor with innovative methods to tackle it - like wayne's cars etc.

But we are all gonna suffer if we don't act -
and that goes double for the GBR (great barrier reef)
but Maybe you don't like coral ?
or fish?
or .......
 
which simply means we are being hypocritical when we deny that it's a problem yes?

It's like Johnny Howard: " NO WAY will we sign up to Kyoto and it's goals! - but in any case, just for fun, we've given it a go, and we are doing better"
 

wow -
whilst i disagree with most of your post Kim, I sure as hell find that chemtrail website the weirdest damned thing I've ever seen .
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies?z=3&c=4&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=14

Only thing that comes close maybe is the Tasmanian aerial spraying of the forestry (and the Tassie Devils) - (and the people living or bushwalking at the margins etc thereof)

Anyone know what it's all about - this Chemtrail stuff?
 

Attachments

  • chemtrails2.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 45
which simply means we are being hypocritical when we deny that it's a problem yes?

It's like Johnny Howard: " NO WAY will we sign up to Kyoto and it's goals! - but in any case, just for fun, we've given it a go, and we are doing better"
Problem with UCC development is that it's about 4 to 5 years away from development in Australia. This, I feel, is not Australia's fault and as the Great John Howard said, if we don't supply the coal then they will buy inferior coal from the likes of Indonesia.
Australian coal is amongst the very best in the World, don't knock it, fly the :aus:
 
1. Nuclear power, non-hydro renewables, natural gas, manufacturers of energy saving technologies (especially solar hot water and low energy lighting), hydro.

2. Internationally: Nuclear industry, Green politics, non-hydro renewables, manufacturers of energy saving technologies, natural gas, hydro.

Within Australia: Green politics, nuclear, hydro, non-hydro renewables, natural gas, manufacturers and importers of low energy water heaters and to a lesser extent lighting.

3. Yes (largely ignored by mainstream media).

4. Electricity generation from fossil fuels (globally about 60% of total generation, in Australia about 90%).

5. Industries and countries more reliant on coal (especially coal-fired electricity) than their competitors.

At the country level: Australia, US and any other country first world country with large coal resources. (Transfers manufacturing and economic wealth to other countries, particularly those with large coal resources not bound by Kyoto).

Within Australia: Victoria is the largest loser with NSW and Qld also facing significant losses. SA, Tas and NT are the most likely to benefit (though that depends on what policy actions and developments are taken in the years ahead). WA may gain in the short term but is likely a long term loser under the present approach.
 
Speaking for myself ... it is hard to look beyond my lifetime, my own self importance, my own existence.To take responsability for the planet beyond my lifetime doesn`t come naturally and i need to be educated.To understand.

I look at the empty packaging of some food just consumed and visualise the rubbish dump ground that it goes to.At the dumping ground i see televisions, furniture, computers, plastic ... lots of plastic, rotting food .... the stench nauseating, toys ... no love anymore.Cover it over and make another rubbish collection place.

My presence as a human contributes to the rubbish in the world.I am only one!

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...