Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Smurf1976]

I just want take this opportunity to distance myself from "The Greens" or any party of like numpties. "Greenie" is now a poisoned term I suppose and I should get myself a different tag... along the lines of "sustainability" I suppose.

A Sustainabiltie?

I've often said that "sustainable" and "green" are different things. The former means something that can continue at least for the foreseeable future (ideally forever) because it isn't using something up etc. The latter is a political movement like any other.

 

[2020hindsight]

The Russians have nuclear powered icebreakers capable of breaking 3m deep ice, - in the course of doing hydrographic surveys of the arctic seabed - (never been able to be surveyed before) - and obviously in the course of going back -and-forwards (as they have to do in the hydrographic survey business) they would cut up the entire area of seaice.

The diesel powered US breakers can only break 2m deep ice on a good day ( i;e; wait a few years) .

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/promos/wirepicks/story/436604.html


http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2007/sevmorput_drilling

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070823-arctic-oil.html

Icebreakers become hot commodity in race for Arctic oil
QUEENIE WONG; McClatchy Newspapers Published: August 7th, 2008 06:02 AM |

A new cold war is breaking out in the race for Arctic oil, natural gas and minerals, and it involves front-line icebreakers. Russia has seven and the United States has three, if you count one that’s laid up in Seattle and won’t be seaworthy for a year.

Global warming and high energy prices have made the Arctic coastline and seafloor, despite their harsh climate, some of the most appealing places in the world for energy exploration. Much the same goes for the gold, platinum, copper and other metals found along the Arctic coast and likely in its continental shelves.

The increased traffic that Arctic exploitation entails will mean more work for icebreakers, Adm. Thad Allen, the commandant of the Coast Guard, told a House committee recently. Retreating ice has opened the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route above Russia in summer to container ships and oil tankers.

That's it isn't it
game over -

the oil companies are in there. Watch the sudden "lobbyist - and political -pressure" now to deny the GW message

 

[Pat]

Anyone even remotely concerned about the issue wouldn't want a boat or 4WD in the first place unless it's needed for income generation.

You can't expect me to take anyone too seriously if on one hand they run around shouting about AGW whilst on the other hand burning thousands of litres of petrol / diesel just for the fun of it.

It would be like complaining about smog whilst shovelling leaves onto a bonfire in the backyard. Or protesting about dams then going home to hose the driveway. You can't expect anyone doing such things to be taken as anything other than a comedian.

As I've often said, if you want to stop AGW then all you need to do is stop polluting. If enough people agree then that fixes the problem. Thing is, there aren't too many people willing to stop polluting unless given no choice - that strongly suggests they're not losing too much sleep over the issue.

I guess I disagree. I'm not complaining about GW, smog, flood or drought. Just saying its possible humans are contributing to GW, and if so, we should change a few things (It’s already begun). Just because I own a 4WD does not make it not so, nor does it make me a hypocrite.

You're stereotyping 4WD's and their owners, I don't know any 4WDer who burns 1000's of litres just for the fun of it, in fact they use about the same/little more than a V6 Holden. I cannot say it is an environmentally friendly pastime, but can I make up for it elsewhere?

I do not see the logic Wayne sees. In making/asking millions of people (this could go into so many things, from motor racing to unnecessary air travel) give up their "fun" when the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are far from the individual’s control. In time we shall have environmentally friendly transportation, manufacturing processes and such and such, then can we go back to towing our boats?

To be realistic, and significant change will take generations, for the moment we should keep on going the way where going. Our limited energy resources will be the reason for change. For the world to keep on turning, we'll have to go electric and hydrogen. I really don't care too much for rising sea levels, I’m a surfer , and it’s probably going to happen sooner or later.

Taking what I know into consideration, I'd like to see in the near future, some sort of global agreement passed. Where all new cars are hybrids. Maybe we can remove ourselves from this petro chemical addiction.

 

[2020hindsight]

..the oil companies are in there. Watch the sudden "lobbyist - and political -pressure" now to deny the GW message

The Singers will start balling, and the Balls will start singing..

(Both Fred Singer and Tim Ball went into print defending the cigarette companies against the charge that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer - now they are defending the role of the oil companies )

http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/aginatur/swindle.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

 

[Smurf1976]

I guess I disagree. I'm not complaining about GW, smog, flood or drought. Just saying its possible humans are contributing to GW, and if so, we should change a few things (It’s already begun). Just because I own a 4WD does not make it not so, nor does it make me a hypocrite.

You're stereotyping 4WD's and their owners, I don't know any 4WDer who burns 1000's of litres just for the fun of it, in fact they use about the same/little more than a V6 Holden. I cannot say it is an environmentally friendly pastime, but can I make up for it elsewhere?

I do not see the logic Wayne sees. In making/asking millions of people (this could go into so many things, from motor racing to unnecessary air travel) give up their "fun" when the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are far from the individual’s control. In time we shall have environmentally friendly transportation, manufacturing processes and such and such, then can we go back to towing our boats?

To be realistic, and significant change will take generations, for the moment we should keep on going the way where going. Our limited energy resources will be the reason for change. For the world to keep on turning, we'll have to go electric and hydrogen. I really don't care too much for rising sea levels, I’m a surfer , and it’s probably going to happen sooner or later.

Taking what I know into consideration, I'd like to see in the near future, some sort of global agreement passed. Where all new cars are hybrids. Maybe we can remove ourselves from this petro chemical addiction.

I only mentioned 4WD's because someone else mentioned it. I could have said large houses, big TV's, recreational travel, posting on an internet forum or ANYTHING else since everything we do uses energy somehow.

I was actually thinking of the boat more than the 4WD though and had this example in mind. I know someone who went "fishing" (not that they'll likely catch too many fish - it's more of a party trip) today on a boat. They told me it'll cost $140 for diesel to run the boat and there's 9 people. OK I thought, not too bad. Then they pointed out that was $140 each. Yep, a total of about 700 litres of diesel to catch a dozen fish. Add to that they'll all be travelling (separately I assume) an average 100km or so round trip to get to the boat. Another 150 or so litres of petrol given most of them have fairly large vehicles.

That's a rather energy intensive form of recreation - 100 litres per person for a day's fun. I'm not against it, but it wouldn't stack up if I hear him saying something about cutting CO2 emissions, now would it?

Anyone can choose to spend an extra $20,000 on an expensive car and an extra $1000 a year in fuel to run it compared to a cheaper car. Or they can choose to spend just $2000, once, to go solar for hot water and save maybe $250 a year in the process. That most chose the car (or some other form of consumption) speaks volumes in my opinion - they're not concerned enough abuot AGW to spend even a small amount of their own money, which they'll get back eventually anyway, to make a substantial cut in their own emissions. Money talks and it says the concern is superficial at best - we want something done but not if it means even the slightest dent in living standards.

As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.

Realistically, I think as a country we ought to be planning to adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to stop it. When you realise that even many countries bound by Kyoto are now busily building massive coal-fired power plants, you realise how futile it is to be saving a few kg of CO2 here and there catching the bus to work, taking short showers or turning the heating to an uncomfortably low setting. At best it's a slight change that is little more than a rounding error whilst total emissions continue to rise.

This explains much of what I've posted on the subject over the course of this thread. I'm not convinced either way on the science but I am convinced the climate is changing - only question is if it's natural or man-made. But either way I don't see humans doing anything significant to alter the course we're on now even if we find outright proof that humans are the cause.

10 years time I doubt we'll be hearing much about this one. It will either be proven or disproven and if it's real it will be accepted as inevitable. Oil shortage will be the dominant theme by then in the same way CO2 is now. Every comment from every politician, every corporation and so on will relate not to CO2 but to oil. 20 years after that it will be natural gas.

 

[metric]

BBC reports on Global Dimming - What is it? And what could be causing it? *
Wise Up Journal
13.08.2008
by Gabriel O’Hara

BBC confirms global dimming but promotes a false reason for it occurring:

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface has been gradually falling.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. “There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me,” he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a skeptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world’s rainfall.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires[…]

BBC jumps on the blame everything on industrial society band wagon by suggesting this recent problem of global dimming “appears” (possibly, maybe…) to be caused by the ordinary industrial man’s life style. Cloud Seeding is not mentioned which has been used for decades and is being used during the Beijing Olympics to control the weather as CNN states, “China now boasts it is the world’s leading rainmaker. It has created enough rain during the past five years to fill the Yellow River, the nation’s second largest, four times over. And if all goes to plan, none of it will be falling when the Olympics will be held.”

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

“Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports.”

The BBC did not consider Cloud Seeding despite public knowledge of it through TV documentaries. Reports from main stream media on covert Cloud Seeding has appeared recently, such as the German TV news clip below which caught the German military
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=462

 

[jonojpsg]

I only mentioned 4WD's because someone else mentioned it. I could have said large houses, big TV's, recreational travel, posting on an internet forum or ANYTHING else since everything we do uses energy somehow.

I was actually thinking of the boat more than the 4WD though and had this example in mind. I know someone who went "fishing" (not that they'll likely catch too many fish - it's more of a party trip) today on a boat. They told me it'll cost $140 for diesel to run the boat and there's 9 people. OK I thought, not too bad. Then they pointed out that was $140 each. Yep, a total of about 700 litres of diesel to catch a dozen fish. Add to that they'll all be travelling (separately I assume) an average 100km or so round trip to get to the boat. Another 150 or so litres of petrol given most of them have fairly large vehicles.

That's a rather energy intensive form of recreation - 100 litres per person for a day's fun. I'm not against it, but it wouldn't stack up if I hear him saying something about cutting CO2 emissions, now would it?

Anyone can choose to spend an extra $20,000 on an expensive car and an extra $1000 a year in fuel to run it compared to a cheaper car. Or they can choose to spend just $2000, once, to go solar for hot water and save maybe $250 a year in the process. That most chose the car (or some other form of consumption) speaks volumes in my opinion - they're not concerned enough abuot AGW to spend even a small amount of their own money, which they'll get back eventually anyway, to make a substantial cut in their own emissions. Money talks and it says the concern is superficial at best - we want something done but not if it means even the slightest dent in living standards.

As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.

Realistically, I think as a country we ought to be planning to adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to stop it. When you realise that even many countries bound by Kyoto are now busily building massive coal-fired power plants, you realise how futile it is to be saving a few kg of CO2 here and there catching the bus to work, taking short showers or turning the heating to an uncomfortably low setting. At best it's a slight change that is little more than a rounding error whilst total emissions continue to rise.

This explains much of what I've posted on the subject over the course of this thread. I'm not convinced either way on the science but I am convinced the climate is changing - only question is if it's natural or man-made. But either way I don't see humans doing anything significant to alter the course we're on now even if we find outright proof that humans are the cause.

10 years time I doubt we'll be hearing much about this one. It will either be proven or disproven and if it's real it will be accepted as inevitable. Oil shortage will be the dominant theme by then in the same way CO2 is now. Every comment from every politician, every corporation and so on will relate not to CO2 but to oil. 20 years after that it will be natural gas.

Oh wow that's scary! Adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to do something about it

What happens when Greenland ice sheet goes or West Antarctic?? I've been talking and thinking about this a bit over the last few weeks and it's hard to imagine what life would be like if sea level rose by 6 metres. Think about how much of your local area would go under if that happened? Think about what major infrastructure would go under? If that happens I don't think there is any way that we could justify continuing to burn fossil fuels. The price for continuing to do so would be to risk East Antarctica going as well which would mean 60m sea level rise!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree unfortunately though that we are likely to keep on burning fossil fuels for as long as we can access them cheaply, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think if we go hard with renewables/nuclear/hydrogen that we could replace fossil fuels within thirty years. It just takes some major political will to bite the bullet and say we're going to do it.

 

[Happy]

BBC reports on Global Dimming - What is it? And what could be causing it? *
Wise Up Journal
13.08.2008
by Gabriel O’Hara

BBC confirms global dimming but promotes a false reason for it occurring:

Luckily carbon trading money might help fight global cooling as well as global warming.

 

[Smurf1976]

Oh wow that's scary! Adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to do something about it

I see it as being like what you do if there's a major fire in your area. Sure, we could send in an army of trucks and 500 firefighters plus a few water bombing helicopters to get the situation under control and save property from destruction.

But if that's not actually happening and your house isn't prepared for fire then the only rational choice is for you to get out of the place any way you can and save your life whilst accepting the likely loss of your home as inevitable.

From Australia's perspective, we alone can not cut CO2 emissions anywhere near enough to make a difference. Even the US can't really cut enough to make more than a modest dent in the total. So if the rest of the world is (in total) increasing emissions then we're stuck with the consequences no matter what they are.

 

[Wysiwyg]

60 minutes has a program on tonight which might throw some light on the subject.

 

[nioka]

Global cooling. This winter has been the coldest I have experienced for this area. 3 frosts this week when we normally would not have any at all and certainly not any in August. Makes one wonder. Sea temp a lot lower than I would have expected, spoiling the fishing and making gardening harder. ?????

 

[Fleeta]

'As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.'

There is actually 500 YEARS of brown coal supply in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. As Kevin Rudd said on 60 minutes last night - our effort to cut emissions will purely be on clean coal technology.

Whatever happened to reducing electricity usage as a measure of cutting emissions??

After watching 60 minutes last night, and from what i've heard from statistical analysis - there is a fair bit of evidence that we are within the standard deviations of temparature movement and there is no such thing as global warming. On the flip side is it worth risking this to be the case and ignoring emissions? Probably not...

 

[nioka]

'
There is actually 500 YEARS of brown coal supply in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. As Kevin Rudd said on 60 minutes last night - our effort to cut emissions will purely be on clean coal technology.
.

ESI have technology that will improve the brown caol to a point where it will be superior to the black coal. ESI should be in a great position to benefit from the present government's policies regarding CO2 emissions and clean coal technology. That is the reason why I continue to hold ESI but for some reason it doesn't seem to rate high in the popularity stakes. Maybe the power station using the brown coal is waiting for the government to pay for the cost of using the process.

 

[Smurf1976]

Whatever happened to reducing electricity usage as a measure of cutting emissions??

That idea has died down since a few more people started to realise what engineers have been screaming about all these years. The economy is electric.

You want to use less power? Then beyond a few percent you need to have less economy. Society just isn't ready for that one yet.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.'

....
2. After watching 60 minutes last night, and from what i've heard from statistical analysis - there is a fair bit of evidence that we are within the standard deviations of temparature movement

3. and there is no such thing as global warming.

4. On the flip side is it worth risking this to be the case and ignoring emissions? Probably not...

1. Then again Fleeta, (as someone said the other day), man didn't stop throwing rocks at each other because they ran out of rocks - they invented something better ( like the atom bomb for instance ) Let's assume we invent something better for energy generation, nuclear for ploughshares instead of for swords etc.

2. "we are within the standard deviations" - yeah lol but how many. i.e. if we are outside 1.65 standard deviations and within 1.70, (example), then we are still 95% confident of being right. (I think IPCC prefer to talk 90% confidence limits btw - depending on which comment is being discussed).

3. most nobel prise winning scientists would disagree with you but...

4. bottom line, I agree with your conclusion in any case. (as should everyone surely, even the sceptics. )

 

[wayneL]

2. "we are within the standard deviations" - yeah lol but how many. i.e. if we are outside 1.65 standard deviations and within 1.70, (example), then we are still 95% confident of being right. (I think IPCC prefer to talk 90% confidence limits btw - depending on which comment is being discussed).

I think I've already destroyed the st. dev. argument... meaningless. As far as IPCC confidence... folks shouldn't trust gravy trains in motion.

3. most nobel prise winning scientists would disagree with you but...

When (mispelt) platitudes are resorted to, we know the science is in trouble; as indeed it is.

4. bottom line, I agree with your conclusion in any case. (as should everyone surely, even the sceptics. )

I don't know about sceptics, but some skeptics might.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. I think I've already destroyed the st. dev. argument... meaningless.

.2 I don't know about sceptics, but some skeptics might.

1. please explain

PS is that the same post where you destroyed any argument that icecaps and polar bears weren't at risk etc ?

2. so you say that "sceptics" is wrong? - or just not YOUR preferred spelling?

 

[Aussiejeff]

Luckily carbon trading money might help fight global cooling as well as global warming.

On the other hand, "carbon trading money" might "un-luckily" make the filthy rich richer and the desperately poor poorer - without having any significant effect in fighting global cooling or warming.....

Personally, I tend toward the latter viewpoint.

 

[wayneL]

1. please explain

Now you're Pauline Hanson?

PS is that the same post where you destroyed any argument that icecaps and polar bears weren't at risk etc ?

No they were different destructions.

2. so you say that "sceptics" is wrong? - or just not YOUR preferred spelling?

You don't do irony?

Well I suppose those without the faculty of investigative logic, would miss that one.

 

[2020hindsight]

Now you're Pauline Hanson?

No they were different destructions.

You don't do irony?

Well I suppose those without the faculty of investigative logic, would miss that one.

whatever.

speaking of investigative logic, I'll accept your position as given in your first post (#22) ... at least you are (or were then, whatever) in favour of action (I think)

Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society.