Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Smurf1976]

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.

The service industry model is what's brought so much undone recently with the financial crisis. You don't create real wealth shuffling money - witness the transfer of global wealth to those carrying out actual physical production (eg China) away from the service economies.

As for Tasmania, it's been going down this track for nearly three decades now. Thus far, its service economy has failed miserably to deliver on overall economic performance and individual wages as any comparisson of Tasmania versus the other states during the 80's, 90's or 00's will clearly reveal. And yes, it must be said, the only time during the 20th Century that Tasmania consistently out performed the national average economically was during the peak of hydro-industrialisation.

Taking mining etc out of Australia is like taking the engine oil out of a car. Mining, as with the oil, seems like a rather trivial component but the whole lot comes crashing down without it.

Lose the exports from energy intensive and other rurual type industries and the resultant currency collapse will wipe out the service industries there and then since the latter by definition lives off the surplus wealth created by the former. Note what's happening in the US, Zimbabwe or anywhere else that thought they could live forever on the international credit card - bottom line is either you produce goods at home, export something else in order to buy them with, or you go broke.

So we've got to export something. If not minerals and energy-intensive things then what, exactly, do we export? Hot air?

 

[bandicoot76]

according to scientists the earth started out as a flaming ball of gas and molten lava, since that time it has gone from ice age to a tropical climate countless times... a recent geological report estimated that at the time of the dinosaurs the earths temp was somehwere between 50 & 60 degrees C, traces of tomatoes growing were found in the artic circle by archeologists recently, greenland was named that as it was covered in lush grass at the time of the vikings... TO THINK THAT THE CLIMATE WILL REMAIN STAGNANT AT A TEMPERATURE THAT SUITS HUMANS IS BLOODY REDICULOUS! the climate constantly changes, the different gas concentrations in the atmosphere are determined to a large part by the oceans (the real 'lungs of the earth') the amount of temperate variation caused by AGW is miniscule (estimated at 0.07 of a degree by richard lidzen if i recall correctly) ...its easy to stump the AGW zealots, just ask them "well what is the average temp for the earth supposed to be?" ... i havnt been able to get a response yet!!!! we need to focus on sustainability & pollution control rather than be sidetracked by the money-machine that makes up the AGW religion... and if anyone tells me i cant eat meat they'll be measuring their height on the bl**dy ground!!!

 

[Smurf1976]

This is what I'm worried about with industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

There are basically two countries running massive per capita current account deficits. Australia is one, the US is the other. Nobody else is accumulating such a massive debt as these two.

Now, is anyone game to argue that Australia won't follow the US path from here on?

It's pretty widely acknowledged now that manufacturing finished products in Australia isn't viable because others can do it far cheaper. In every state and indeed near every capital city there are countless abandoned factories that once produced goods we now import. Even the "too big to fail" car industry is slowly but surely joining the list.

Likewise a large portion of non-government jobs located in offices can be offshored far more easily than you might think. If they can be sent from Hobart to Melbourne as actually happened during the 80's and 90's then it's not much harder to send them to India. It's not just call centres, it's the entire administration apart from roles directly relating to customers face to face - and even they can be reduced by technology.

So what are we going to export? Surely we don't think that the rest of the world is going to keep sending cars, aeroplanes, fuel, consumer goods, electronics and just about everything else in return for absolutely nothing? They'll want something back sooner or later.

Which leaves us with agriculture, mining and the only sort of manufacturing we seem to be competitive at - energy-intensive processing.

Education? Well it works now having that as an export industry. But surely nobody believes that the Chinese etc won't set up their own universitys sooner or later rather than keep coming here. Of course they will.

Health? Well you can't really offshore the local GP, but we can't really export that either. Any country where people can afford to pay, has their own doctors etc.

IT? Again it's largely imported hardware and apart from hardware-based physical things, the rest can be offshored just like anything else.

Tourism? Well that's an export, sort of. American planes running on fuel from Vietnam are a big import. But overseas visitors here are, financially, an export as far as bringing in money is concerned. But we're going to need an awful lot more tourists to pay this country's import bill that way. The sort of visitor numbers that aren't a small increase, but are beyond anyone's wildest dreams at the moment. (And then there's all that CO2 from aircraft...).

Bottom line is I just don't see it. We're left with agriculture, mining, energy-intensive processing, tourism and a few niche manufacturing operations as far as exports are concerned. Everything else is either too small to matter, isn't readily exportable anyway or is easily able to be offshored.

A case in point is what I've been doing over the past few days. Went to Melbourne on holidays. Now, some will point to this boosting GDP which is certainly true. But let's have a look at what it does to the balance of payments:

Drive to airport in a Japanese car running on imported petrol.

Flew to Melbourne in an American plane, also running on imported fuel.

Spent money at hotels, shops and so on. There would be a component of imports there, such as goods I bought in shops or equipment used in the hotel.

Came back again in an American plane etc.

Now, every single step of this sent money offshore in some way. Even the trains in Melbourne are (I'm told) now manufactured by a foreign company. Sure, I've added to GDP to circulate amongst ourselves but there's a constant drain heading offshore.

It's like swimming in a pool when someone's pulled the plug - splashing about will create some activity yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the pool will be empty at some point if there's more going out than coming in.

What are we going to do to bring some money back into Australia? Or are we just going to keep mortgaging the future, something that spells disaster as least as much as climate change if we allow it to happen?

Hence I'm none too keen on offshoring the few viable export industries we've got unless there's outright proof that foreigners will indeed support us forever - and there's not much chance of that happening, they'll want payment at some point (witness China's apparent threats to the US recently).

If we get this wrong then we'll either stuff the planet through CO2 or we'll stuff it trying to survive after we've gone broke. Take a look at any poor Third World country - they aren't exactly going to stop pollution or protect anything when they need every cent they can get no matter what the consequences. I'd rather we didn't head that way in Australia simply so we can take some high moral stand whilst our industry heads offshore only to pollute there instead. Principles? Yes, but not to the point of ruining the entire country...

 

[Agentm]

according to scientists the earth started out as a flaming ball of gas and molten lava, since that time it has gone from ice age to a tropical climate countless times... a recent geological report estimated that at the time of the dinosaurs the earths temp was somehwere between 50 & 60 degrees C, traces of tomatoes growing were found in the artic circle by archeologists recently, greenland was named that as it was covered in lush grass at the time of the vikings... TO THINK THAT THE CLIMATE WILL REMAIN STAGNANT AT A TEMPERATURE THAT SUITS HUMANS IS BLOODY REDICULOUS! the climate constantly changes, the different gas concentrations in the atmosphere are determined to a large part by the oceans (the real 'lungs of the earth') the amount of temperate variation caused by AGW is miniscule (estimated at 0.07 of a degree by richard lidzen if i recall correctly) ...its easy to stump the AGW zealots, just ask them "well what is the average temp for the earth supposed to be?" ... i havnt been able to get a response yet!!!! we need to focus on sustainability & pollution control rather than be sidetracked by the money-machine that makes up the AGW religion... and if anyone tells me i cant eat meat they'll be measuring their height on the bl**dy ground!!!

earth has been around for 4.7 bilion years, the last few seconds in terms of time has seen lifeforms on it.

you know the less serious gasses are carbondioxide in terms of trapping heat, all gasses trap heat, some do it better than others,

i run a compost system, which enriches the soil, it also produces carbon dioxide..

now methane is 21 times more able to retain heat than co2, so i expect to see greenpeace activists chained to my compost bin very shortly..

lets examine another gas. nitros oxide, now thats 310 times more efficient than methane.. and guess what gas worm produce!.. so now i expect the use of true greenpeace tactics on my compost bin.. things like acid cannisters on my back deck lobbed over the fence by greenpeace terrorists on bikes.. maybe i will find a massive tripod built over my yard and greenpeace throwing spears at me if i come close to that bin..

the more efficient gases, like certain trace gases like fluorocarbons used industrially are more than 1000 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat..

Is the earth warming? Yes, the earth is recovering from the "Little Ice Age." We have enjoyed two centuries of intermittent recovery from the bitter cold which the American Founding Fathers suffered through. However, the warming earth has not yet reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. Northern Europe enjoyed bumper crops during the Medieval Warm Period, the population tripled and European civilization revived. Europe had suffering a Dark Age during a time of cooling but civilization revived late in the subsequent warming phase. When a new cycle of global cooling began in the fourteenth century, the mild, relatively stable weather of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to fierce storms, flooding and famine.

 

[Agentm]

Global warming isn't real, says Senator Fielding
June 24, 2009 - 3:17PM

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

After talks with the Government and top scientists, Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial Senate vote, has released a document setting out his position.

"Global temperature isn't rising," it says.

On emissions trading, Senator Fielding said he wouldn't risk job losses on "unconvincing green science".

The document was prepared with the help of some of the country's most prominent climate-sceptic scientists.

It says it is a "fact" that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

The Senate is due to debate emissions trading legislation this week.

The Government is struggling to muster enough votes to pass the legislation.

Senator Fielding's stance appears to torpedo the chance of the scheme passing as the Government would need his support, as well as that of the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon.

Otherwise, the Government would need the support of the Opposition to pass the scheme.

 

[roysolder]

just my two bits again,some countries never entered the kioto protocol because they either could,nt afford it..changing to environmentally friendly refrigerants on a big scale.some third world countries have a crappy old refrigerator they were probably lucky to come by and tell them it has to go!imagine the health issues if they could not replace it with the new "ozone friendly fridge" and the corro roof leaks.
cfc,s are clever really,they can find there way down to new zealand where the largest hole in the ozone layer is..just happens to be over a volcano spewing out sulpher.
just to add a little more,cfc,s are heavier than air so the clever little mites have built there own rocket to get up(25 miles) and attack the ozone layer some more.
my solution: plug the cows bot bots (eliminate methane)
go back to horse and kart ( reduce co2 still a methane problem but refer to no 1)

 

[spooly74]

cfc,s are clever really,they can find there way down to new zealand where the largest hole in the ozone layer is..just happens to be over a volcano spewing out sulpher.
just to add a little more,cfc,s are heavier than air so the clever little mites have built there own rocket to get up(25 miles) and attack the ozone layer some more.

The science of CFC's is fully understood. There is no doubt that they cause damage to the ozone layer by mixing with Polar Stratospheric Clouds at high altitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_stratospheric_cloud

 

[Onlooker]

You may wish to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo&feature=player_embedded and Part 2 and Part 3. I can't wait to get hold of the book "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science"

 

[Smurf1976]

It was pretty simple to replace CFC's with, in various applications, propane, butane, nitrogen, hydro-flurocarbons, CO2 and dry powders. The only real downside was cost and reduced energy efficiency in some applications (that is, higher CO2 emissions...).

But the CO2 problem is very different. It comes from ENERGY and that's the most absolutely all-pervasive thing there is and one with no easy answers. It's not as though we have a simple replacement that's almost as good as we did with CFC's. All we've got are things that cost a fortune, have all sorts of non-CO2 environmental downsides and are only a partial replacement anyway.

It's a lot harder with the CO2 issue than it was with CFC's and that's the problem. If it were easy, nobody would be arguing about it.

 

[wayneL]

From http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/kyotos-impact-on-atmospheric-co2/ (a very good blog BTW)

:::

As mentioned by Spliner in the videos posted above:

 

[wayneL]

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm

Basically, there are not enough fossil fuel reserves to fulfil the IPCC's modelling assumptions.

...much of the output of the IPCC's models bears little relationship to the real world. With so much at stake, the least we can expect is for scientists and policymakers to make sure that they are using the right data. Garbage in, garbage out.

OOPS.

Also neatly skewers the ocean acidification argument.

 

[Smurf1976]

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm

Basically, there are not enough fossil fuel reserves to fulfil the IPCC's modelling assumptions.

Not enough fuel is precisely the real issue.

We might have a problem with CO2 at some point maybe, but we've already got a problem with oil production as many have been warning about for quite some time. Even with the economic troubles, we're still pumping almost as much as we can and selling it for $70 a barrel - that's not a sign of an abundant resource.

And even if we did have plenty, that it's mostly in the hands of very few countries is a problem in itself that demands attention.

Oil - getting scarce now.

Gas - still plenty around but it's highly concentrated in Russia and the Middle East. Australia's reserves aren't so big once you consider how much we're planning to export. And we'll end up with international parity pricing at some point anyway (already slowly underway), such that local production becomes irrelevant in terms of local consumption costs and policy.

Coal - there's more of it that's for sure. But even there a lot is difficult to get at and it's still a fairly concentrated resource geographically (though it just happens that Australia has quite a bit so it's not a problem locally).

As I've said before, the real energy issue is going to be how to keep the wheels turning (oil) and what to do about gas once that becomes priced as a transport fuel - something that makes it too expensive for all those baseload gas-fired power plants some see as a solution to the CO2 issue. Both are problems in the lifetime of most here, not something that can wait a few decades.

Don't believe me? Then why the high oil price, international politics and wars over the stuff? Why the panic whenever Russia threatens gas supplies? Because most of the world doesn't have much of either...

Move away from oil and gas and there's a limit to how much CO2 we could prodduce anyway. Two problems fixed at once rather than a CO2-driven shift to even greater reliance on limited gas resources that won't likely work in the long term.

A bit less CO2 now by using gas then we end up trying to liquefy and gassify coal to run all the oil/gas dependent infrastructure we built to try and avoid using coal?

Or a gradual shift to sustainable energy with short term ongoing reliance on coal (plenty of it) that ultimately gets us to no CO2 and no need to worry about things running out?

The latter sounds like a more rational plan to me.

For those who disagree, please explain how we're going to get to the oil production levels implied in the IPCC calculations? It won't happen with known reserves and the past 45 years' rate of declining discovery that's for sure. Same with gas.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Here is great initiative by global warming enthusiasts. Not this Saturday but the following Saturday 12th, a walk against global warming takes place.

President of ACF, chair of the first Australian State of the Environment Report in 1996 and referee for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof Ian Lowe AO will be at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen.
He wants to see you at Walk against Warming on December 12th.

Here's why.

Follow the links below for more about Brisbane's Walk against Warming and how to send the Prime Minister a letter telling him that we want leadership for a safe climate.

 

[BigWillieStyles]

Here is great initiative by global warming enthusiasts. Not this Saturday but the following Saturday 12th, a walk against global warming takes place.


Here's why.

Nice post.

 

[alphaman]

Am I missing something? Choice b looks obviously silly.

"If" there is a problem that will impact us severely, we'd better try to correct it, regardless of cause.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Am I missing something? Choice b looks obviously silly.

"If" there is a problem that will impact us severely, we'd better try to correct it, regardless of cause.

You should know man's way. Cure is better than prevention.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Global Warming Officially is OVER.

Read Imre Salusinszky in the Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-global-warming/story-e6frg71o-1226241105031

IF you are reading this on a train or a bus, I want you to lean across and shake the hand of the man or woman sitting next to you. Folks, we did it. We beat global warming.

Last year, at this time, I wrote of how global warming was already on the retreat in Australia because of the way humanity, for once, put aside its differences and acted in unison.

Last year, other parts of the globe followed suit. According to the World Meteorological Organisation: "The most significant area of below-normal temperatures in 2011 was in northern and central Australia, where temperatures were up to 1C below average in places . . . Other regions to experience below-normal temperatures in 2011 included the western United States and southwestern Canada, and parts of east Asia."

Last year was the sixth coldest since 1997, which shows the catastrophic scenarios of recent times are no longer looming over us.

So how did we manage to beat global warming?

Well, in the first place - and this almost goes without saying - we thought global, but acted local.

Second, we listened. We listened to people like Bob Brown and Tim Flannery, even though they have no meteorological training and have voiced many silly opinions on other subjects.

Third, enormous credit belongs to the Australian government. A nation that generates less than 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions made its taxation system more complicated: this was clearly decisive.

But here's the most important thing we did: we suspended the role of education institutions as centres of learning and made them centres of browbeating.

gg

 

[Julia]

You beat me to putting up Imre's remarks. Succinct and funny.

 

[Logique]

Global Warming Officially is OVER.
Read Imre Salusinszky in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-global-warming/story-e6frg71o-1226241105031
gg

The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first.

In central NSW, in mid-Jan, here are the forecast maxima tempC for the next 4 days: 22, 25, 23, 23.

 

[Calliope]

The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first.

In central NSW, in mid-Jan, here are the forecast maxima tempC for the next 4 days: 22, 25, 23, 23.

Canberra's minimum last night was 1.6 degrees.