Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

All this talk about "climate change", "global warming" etc is moot.

When it comes down to tin tacks and actual delivery of real programs & policies, the MAIN policy driving forces (as far as gummints are concerned now and for the foreseeable future) are -

(1) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

(2) ENDLESS, FAST ECONOMIC GROWTH (via trade, commodities, manufacturing consumables etc).

(3) ENDLESS, FAST ASSET GROWTH (via commercial & private R/E, commercial & private monetary wealth schemes etc).

(4) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS (oh, have I already mentioned that?).

Seems to me for all of the above conditions to be met, the planet will require a rapidly expanding human population, with that population increasingly greedy for much higher living standards and an exponential willingness to CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME.

So, given the above primary driving factors of governement policy, can someone please explain to me how the current climate debate will address the above stumbling blocks?

chiz,


aj

Couldn't find an appropriate thread for this, so I decided to put it here (sort of relates to the topic).......

On the issue of phasing out incandescent light globes "to save the planet": Now all the wierdo pollies, looney lefties, greenies are pushing the line that incandescent globes are BAD for the planet and CFL globes are GOOD for the planet. Well, there are 2 issues (and there are lots of others) that no one seems to be prepared to discuss:-

1) Who/which guvmint department is putting in place a safe way of disposing of CFL globes? Seems to me that after November all the landfill sites are going to have a whole lot more mercury in them. Now that's a really good plan.

2) I understand that whilst a 11W CFL only draws 11W (as stated on the lable), it actually requires around 22KVA because of their very poor power factor. You only get billed for the 11W, but the power station essentially has to generate twice that (the excess energy goes into heating the power lines). So .... which professor (I use that term loosely) did the cost benefit analysis on changing from incandescent to CFL globes? Does anyone really know that this is a good plan - higher energy and material input into CFL globes, more generating capacity required at the coal face (ie more CO2), and significant disposal problems?

This plan may yield a lower consumer electricity bill in the short term but watch out what happens when the power generators and distributors find that it is costing them more to generate and transmit electricity. They will probably start charging you for Volt-Amps rather than Watts. And your rubbish bill from the local council may well increase.

I am yet to see any sensible analysis or explanation of this plan from guvmint, which leads me to suspect it may well be a crock of............

If you want to read up on this topic, here is a good site to visit that has in depth analysis of all of the issues relating to CFLs.
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Don't have time for a detailed post right now. But in short, correct about the CFL's drawing more current since many do have a power factor around 0.5 although I should point out it's 22VA not 22KVA unless you're counting every light in every house in the street.

As for charging, well charging for VA is already done for non-residential customers to some extent so nothing new there.

Generally speaking, your utility would like you to have a power factor of at least 0.8 and there are sound technical and economic reasons for this. It's actually a supply condition in a lot of cases.

Smurf1976 said:

Don't have time for a detailed post right now. But in short, correct about the CFL's drawing more current since many do have a power factor around 0.5 although I should point out it's 22VA not 22KVA unless you're counting every light in every house in the street.

As for charging, well charging for VA is already done for non-residential customers to some extent so nothing new there.

Generally speaking, your utility would like you to have a power factor of at least 0.8 and there are sound technical and economic reasons for this. It's actually a supply condition in a lot of cases.

Click to expand...

Yes, smurf, you're correct. VA not KVA. I'm not used to dealing with such small numbers. Thanks for your comments, I was hoping you could provide a comment. I guess if CFL usage becomes large then there may be some impact on the grid but I am yet to see any detailed analysis of this, and whether that would spur on utilities to charge residential customers for VA. Although I believe steps are being taken to improve the PF on CFLs.


My real point in posting this is that there does not appear to be any proper cost/benefit analysis to this whole approach. At least, I havn't seen anything coming from government. And I certialy dont call the stuff put out by the advertising/marketing geeks, a proper complete cycle cost/benefit analysis. My gut feel is that although CFLs have their place, simply banning incandescent and virtually demanding everyone switch to CFL (And yes, I am aware of halogen and LED solutions), is not a well thought out plan. Especially when driven by pollies and their bureaucrats. It's similar to their ill thought out plan with the ETS TAX; shoot from the hip first and forget about where the real solutions are going to come from. Seems to me they get everything arsx about face; instead of working at the solution end, why not beat the living daylights out of the status quo.

Below is the USA EPA recommended procedure for cleaning up a broken CFL. Huh? How many other products like this do you have in your home?

Cleanup and Disposal Guidelines
For Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs)
June 2008​

What precautions should I take when using CFLs in my home?CFLs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Be careful when removing the bulb from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Always screw and unscrew the light bulb by its base (not the glass), and never forcefully twist the CFL into a light socket. If a CFL breaks in your home, follow the clean-up recommendations below. Used CFLs should be disposed of properly (see below).

What should I do with a CFL when it burns out?EPA recommends that consumers take advantage of available local recycling options for compact fluorescent light bulbs. EPA is working with CFL manufacturers and major U.S. retailers to expand recycling and disposal options. Consumers can contact their local municipal solid waste agency directly, or go to www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling or www.earth911.org to identify local recycling options.

If your state or local environmental regulatory agency permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put it into the outside trash, or other protected outside location, for the next normal trash collection. Never send a fluorescent light bulb or any other mercury-containing product to an incinerator.

If your ENERGY STAR qualified CFL product burns out before it should, look at the CFL base to find the manufacturer’s name. Visit the manufacturer’s web site to find the customer service contact information to inquire about a refund or replacement. Manufacturers producing ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs are required to offer at least a two-year limited warranty (covering manufacturer defects) for CFLs used at home. In the future, save your receipts to document the date of purchase.

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls
For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury, visit http://www.energystar.gov/mercury

i read this thread and i get a huge laugh out of it, its total nonsense..

you can tell a flock of sheep anything and they will believe it

i wish folk would wake up to this garbage carbon debate..

it doesnt even rate as a story in this tiny nation of australia..

australia is a mere drop in the ocean, its just a means to double tax everyone.

i hear this clown on tv getting every reporter to ask him questions, he claims the world is about to end unless something is done.. polar caps are melting, and the oceans will rise, and apparently the worlds temperatures are rising. and most plebs just sit there and believe this nonsense and we are to believe that should this be happening that anything we do will have huge impacts and great benefits to the future of the world.

as if anything we do will impact anything!!


they claim australia has to reduce their emissions, immediately, and like twice as fast, and before the world ends.. but the global industrial companies continue to pile into china as a safe haven.. and each year china will emit more carbon, equivalent to what say germany would emit per year is what china will add each year.

now to make each and every australian responsible for a double tax whilst deliberately ignoring where the carbon growth is really coming from makes a mockery of the argument in favor of emissions reduction. stop investing in china, and make that county contract and it would solve the worlds emissions problems entirely.

our output is not where the world should be pointing to for reductions, the places where it really can make a difference is china, so start there and you would have the opportunity to make an minimal impact if you believe the story, but targeting the australian tax payers to fight global carbon emissions is the wrong place full stop..

if you believe the carbon argument then you need to start looking hard at where all this carbon growth is coming from.. act fast act early and make china a country that is responsible to the environment right now, or kiss you green planet good bye if you swallow this whole carbon/global warming scam..



“According to this paper by two researchers at the University of California carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow between 11.05% and 13.19% per year for the period 2000-2010. What does this mean? I hope you are sitting down because you won’t believe this.

In 2006 China’s carbon dioxide emissions contained about 1.70 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (source). By 2010, at the growth rates projected by these researchers the annual emissions from China will be between 2.6 and 2.8 GtC. The growth in China’s emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China’s 2006 total (source). The emissions growth in China at these rates is like adding another Germany every year, or a UK and Australia together, to global emissions. The graph below illustrates the point.

Thankyou AgentM!!!

You have just taken the time to reply my exact same thoughts.

Australia doing anything at all and reducing our emissions would be the equivalent of me p**sing in the the river to try and stop our drought.

Until China, India & the US decide to do anything all we are doing is making our industries even less competitive than what they already are!

This topic really just irritates me....

** end rant **

Just doesn't make sense for little bug to get ahead of the whole herd of elephants.

Happy said:

Just doesn't make sense for little bug to get ahead of the whole herd of elephants.

Click to expand...

Agree but at the same time, change has to start somewhere. Australia is a wealthy, developed nation and is well positioned to take the first steps in cutting emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk

While AgentMs point is very valid, look instead at per capita emissions. Australians have a per capita carbon footprint 5x greater than the Chinese. What happens when economic growth in China and India reaches all corners of those countries and every man, woman and child in South and North Asia starts pissing in the proverbial carbon river at the rate we are now?

If we (the first world) develop the technologies and efficiencies required to cut our emissions, these technologies can be applied in the developing world so they're never in a position where they have to cut emissions. We all understand how painful and slow that process can be.

If we do nothing and allow India and China to industrialize in the same manner we have, and the doomsdayers are correct, you can take your pick of alarmist Greenpeace scaremonger scenarios...

ronnieling said:

If we do nothing and allow India and China to industrialize in the same manner we have, and the doomsdayers are correct, you can take your pick of alarmist Greenpeace scaremonger scenarios...

Click to expand...

One of my biggest fears is that if we make Australian industry less competitive and it moves offshore, and our energy intensive smelters etc are ONLY here for cheap power, then that in itself greatly helps China's industrialisation and consequent consumption growth.

There's a very real chance we end up turning Australia into a Third World country - we're pretty close as it is with such heavy reliance on agriculture and unprocessed minerals. The energy intensive industries are one of the few things that maintain our First World economic status - they employ few but are massive earners of wealth for this country. Even in "green" Tasmania, energy-intensive processing accounts for around half the state's exports.

Then if we end up making the present Third World countries wealthier, well it's game over for any hope of cutting emissions until the coal really does run out given their massive populations.

Buddy said:

Yes, smurf, you're correct. VA not KVA. I'm not used to dealing with such small numbers. Thanks for your comments, I was hoping you could provide a comment. I guess if CFL usage becomes large then there may be some impact on the grid but I am yet to see any detailed analysis of this, and whether that would spur on utilities to charge residential customers for VA. Although I believe steps are being taken to improve the PF on CFLs.

Click to expand...

They used to have a PF of typically 0.37 to 0.43, that being the uncorrected power factor of a ferromagnetic ballast as was used in the early CFL's (1980's and into the 1990's).

Then they went to typically 0.8 to 0.95 PF with the electronic models.

Now the cheap ones are commonly around 0.5 PF.

For all the non-electrical people, in layman's terms what this means is that with a lower power factor (PF) a device draws more current than it ought to. So something that draws 1 Amp from the mains with a PF of 1.0 will draw 2 Amps to do the exact same thing if it has a PF of 0.5. And so on.

My own view is that for some uses CFL's do make sense but for others they are totally pointless both economically and environmentally (even if considered purely in terms of CO2). So I've stocked up on incandescents for those uses where CFL's don't make sense and will be using those until LED's are affordable for domestic lighting.

Smurf1976 said:

There's a very real chance we end up turning Australia into a Third World country - we're pretty close as it is with such heavy reliance on agriculture and unprocessed minerals. The energy intensive industries are one of the few things that maintain our First World economic status - they employ few but are massive earners of wealth for this country. Even in "green" Tasmania, energy-intensive processing accounts for around half the state's exports.

Then if we end up making the present Third World countries wealthier, well it's game over for any hope of cutting emissions until the coal really does run out given their massive populations.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent about moving industries offshore but I think alot of your other sentiment is misguided.

Energy intensive industries like mining and agriculture make up alot of our EXPORTS but still consist of less than 11% of our economy. First world countries like Australia are built on the services sector (~70% of our GDP). You'll struggle to offshore that sector and at any rate, not due to climate change.

Furthermore, using Tasmania as a microcosm, energy-intensity doesn't necessarily equate to better economic outcomes. Job and economic growth in Tasmania is being driven by an increasingly educated workforce with more uni grads. Not through the five big refineries. Policy from the Bartlett government is to begin to shift from these industries, increase education and identify new opportunities which are coming out of climate change. Clinging onto energy intensive industries to save jobs in the short term will leave Australia behind as other industrialized countries adapt. The challenge for government shouldn't be whether or not we move on from energy-intensive industry but how we can mitigate the near term economic shock in doing so.

The crux of economic development since the industrial revolution is in efficiency - greater labour productivity yields higher standards of living. I think in the next century, within a carbon constrained global economy, we will see, and to an extent have already seen, a paradigm shift toward greater carbon productivity in economies. The textbook economic problem is going to be redefined and answered not only in terms of land, labour and capital but also in terms of carbon.

How many people actually "get" what climate change means - particularly if it gets to a runaway stage ?

This is not a new subject. Our best and brightest scientist identified over 30 years ago that the earth was warming and that, aside from other issues, man produced CO2 emissions were the cause of the warming.

Since the 1980's when we had the first really big awakenings the research and physical evidence has become clearer and clearer. Unfortunately we are now tracking at the highest predicted levels of global warming.

I don't want to repeat the observations I re GW in other forums. But I thought in this forum at least the readers hadn't allowed themselves to fooled by the fossil fool industry conmen.

There is a "latest" report out . I have posted it below. We now have very little time to turn this ship around.

SIZE="4"]Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case predictions[/SIZE]
Adam Morton


The ocean is warming about 50 per cent faster than reported two years ago, according to an update of the latest climate science.

A report compiling research presented at a science congress in Copenhagen in March says recent observations are near the worst-case predictions of the 2007 report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the case of sea-level rise, it is happening at an even greater rate than projected - largely due to rising ocean temperatures causing thermal expansion of seawater.

Released last night at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, the report says ocean temperatures are a better indicator of global warming than air temperature as the ocean stores more heat and responds more slowly to change.

Report co-author Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, said the top 700 metres of the ocean had warmed by about 0.1 degrees over the past half-century.

"While that looks like a modest figure, that would correspond to something like 15 to 20 times more heat going into the ocean than has gone into the atmosphere," Professor Steffen said.

"Well over half of the increase in ocean temperature occurred in the last 10 years, so the system is accelerating."

The report, titled Climate change: Global risks, challenges & decisions, says greenhouse gas emissions needed to peak within the next six years for the world to give a chance of limiting global warming above pre-industrial levels to about two degrees.

But it warms that even a two-degree rise in temperature would lead to significant risks, including loss of water storage capacity in the Himalayan glaciers and the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Ice sheet melting could be locked in for centuries before it is felt.

Other findings in the report include that:

* Sea level is predicted to rise by about a metre by 2100, though it notes models of the behaviour of polar ice sheets are in their infancy.

* Summer Arctic sea ice is reducing dramatically, with the decrease in 2008 almost as great as the record loss in 2007. As ice and snow reflect the sun, loss of sea ice will lead to more rapid warming as heat is instead absorbed by seawater.

* Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have not been substantially higher than now for at least the last 20 million years.

* Global average surface temperature will hardly drop in the first thousand years after greenhouse gas emissions are cut to zero.

Click to expand...

basilio said:

How many people actually "get" what climate change means - particularly if it gets to a runaway stage

Click to expand...

we all get it basilio.

those of us who are yet to be convinced simply ask for evidence.

This is not a new subject. Our best and brightest scientist identified over 30 years ago that the earth was warming and that, aside from other issues, man produced CO2 emissions were the cause of the warming.

Click to expand...

best and brightest? lol

please provide evidence of the assertion that the 'cause' was 'identified' as being man made co2.

I don't want to repeat the observations I re GW in other forums. But I thought in this forum at least the readers hadn't allowed themselves to fooled by the fossil fool industry conmen.

Click to expand...

ahh we couldnt have a AGW hypist try to convince us all without the old "its all a con by big oil" doozy.

i simply seek evidence basilio. not scare campaingns promoted by greenies.

There is a "latest" report out . I have posted it below. We now have very little time to turn this ship around.

Click to expand...

quick quick!! lets tax plant food!

hey basilio, rather than relying on these hype pieces, i like to look at studies that actually use observation and proof.

like this one:

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of −0.35 ( ±0.2) × 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

Click to expand...

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00008

while youre here, im wondering if you minght like to have an attempt at answering the questions Fielding put to Penny wong recently,, the questions she and her 'best and brightest' scientists stumbled over:

QUESTION 1.

Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
QUESTION 2.
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
QUESTION 3.
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?

Click to expand...

What about using a bit of common sense.

Can most of us can agree that Australia is just a drop in the ocean in regards to the effect we have on the global polluting stage?

If the above question is yes and we are assuming that the 3 big polluters will continue to ignore everyone and do as they please.

How about, instead of wasting all this money on introducing these new taxes and schemes and building windmills ect we spend the money on equipment to deal with the effects of the increasing causes.

EG more fire trucks to deal with fighting the bush fires caused by drought. Build more dams, more desal plants ect...

Or is this just too much common sense for anyone....


That is of course, assuming that there actually is global warming and it's not just the modern day version of the Emperors New Clothes..

oh and basilio, heres another interesting graph re: ocean warming

--B-- said:

oh and basilio, heres another interesting graph re: ocean warming

Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to follow the prediction.

If Wong and her advisers can't answer Fielding's simple questions in relation to whether we and our CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change or not, it appears that Rudd and Wong want us to accept all their warnings on blind faith.

The idea that we can alter the climate is nonsense. Emissions trading is the biggest left wing scare campaign perpetrated on the people since communism, and by similar unscrupulous people.

just my two bits but how can we all save in heating costs if we are a few degrees warmer in winter?
i reckon you can not stop changinginging our wicked little ways for the better of man kind(person kind to be pc) lol but truth is folks no one can prove anything.is it just a thousand year cyclic thing?if some one knows any diff i believe from my knowledge we have increased 0.3 of a degree in 140 years!
lets crap our pants and panic.nz is having a colder winter this year.is someone going to make some money out of all this ****e,or keep us underlings worried about yet another pending non existant doom to come.

"the world has been around for a long time,and still will be"

imho the data on the antarctic shows more cooling over the entire region than any warming, despite the years of data being put out in a totally false way the cold fact remains its getting cooler down there

re the global temp rise and co2, its just a story filled with hot air





my personal view on the air temp and climate is that the sea temp is the primary driver of climate conditions, the other major factor has to be the activity of the sun.. both those would have far more detectable impact on temperature over land masses over periods of time, these cycles always change.. nothing is constant