Poll on Action on Global Warming

Prospector said:

Travelling to Tasmania over the weekend, I read that carbon released from bushfires is 3/4 of Tasmania's carbon output through industry.

Click to expand...

Total Tasmanian greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are in fact negative (according to ABS data).

Somewhat ironically, these negative emissions are a direct consequence of the two things mainstream environmentalists hate most and have spent the past four decades trying to stop. They also happen to be the two most well known industries in the state. Forestry and the Hydro.

The figures are a few years old, but here they are (source ABS).

Energy: 3.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent*

Industrial processes (non-energy related emissions): 0.7 MT

Agriculture: 2.3 MT

Forestry: -11.0 MT**

Waste: 0.4 MT

Total: -3.8 MT

*The energy figure would be about 14.3 MT if not for all those dams that environmentalists seem to hate.

**Environmentalists also don't like forestry and would have you believe that the last tree is about to be cut. Fact is 40% of the entire state is protected and the negative emissions are a consequence of increasing numbers of trees.

So, if environmentalists had their way then Tasmanian greenhouse gas emissions would be about +17.7 MT rather than -3.8 MT. They might have saved a river and they might be trying to save a few trees, but they ain't doing much good for the climate.

That is and will always be the problem I have with the greens - they say the climate is a priority above all else but then oppose the very things that actually do some good.

Hey Smurf, I was thinking of you when we were in Tasmania!

I know you mentioned it is dry, but I was surprised to see how dry it was. And that Lake you talk about - is that in the midlands area? We did bring the rain though last Friday! Adelaide is dry, Melbourne though, is even drier, well up until last Friday.

I reckon we saw more dead wildlife along the road than anywhere else, including Kangaroo Island, which we call 'dead kangaroo island' because of all the road kill. Even saw a huge wombat upside down (dead) in the middle of the road - heaven help any car that hit that one during the night.

Gosh Tasmania is beautiful though!

Hi 2020

I have watched the series of The Great Global Warming Swindle as you mentioned and put links in for - Thank you. As this is a thread you began and my understanding is that you and Wayne are arguing if Climate Change is real, I can only offer my opinion after viewing.

I have more questions now than before. This is not a short answer.

In fact, my answers would mostly in themselves be questions, however, we can all only ever answer with our limited wisdom at that time. With the knowledge taken in up to that point, our own morality, psychological nature, instinct, beliefs

My first question is to you or Wayne.

Do you believe what you see and is what you saw 'real' (acceptable for you) or is what you saw what someone else would like you to come to a conclusion on?
(I ask my daughter this all the time - you don't achieve much housework!)

So my conclusion, which will take time to research my way for me, may not gel with either of you or one of you now, future or ever.

What does stand out is, at this moment in time we have a population increasing beyond what our resources can comfortably accommodate.

Tectonic plates have and will move. Species develop and become extinct. If we knew the outcome of all this why do most humans with money live by the sea? Isn't it bad effort for to have lost money due to lack of foresight contidicting your expectation, whenever?

If we were to all live life like those impovished with no electricty, fridge, health access etc would the world at 6.8 billion be a better place? With no knowledge impaired as? (as we look at them in the media conveyed to us now)?

Is electricity really cheaper than wood Episode 8? From the time you pay someone to draft plans, submit, the origins of ore to make a metal to make a mechanical piece, labour setting up infrastructure, monitoring, fixing things up as they break or wear out.....(the list goes on)? or Getting seeds, incubating them, growth , replanting, weed elimination, harvesting.

Depending on what YOU WANT, how you obtain it, where it came from, how it arrived in your possession, how you use it, what you do after you use it, how you dispose of it, and how it is assimilated back into the environment. Can lead to many outcomes. If you care, what do you care about and for how long, are you doing anything about it.

Is a particular lifestyle any healthier, sustainable, cheaper in some respects, acceptable behaviour for you, others or who you are trying to influence for money, support, marketing etc?

I live my life and raise my children relatively 'eco' as I don't like to depend on others for whatever reason (whilst I can) for 1/2 my energy needs and at this stage 1/2 my food, water is plentiful currently - money saving is debatable until items pay themselves off. I am aware they need a healthy lifestyle (or what that means to me). They have inoculations (R & D money, transport, mkting) go to the dentist, have an education I deem quality with additional extras. What they decide to do when they leave me is their choice. I make all efforts geared for their safety and wellbeing (each parent has their own way and circumstances).

The future is in our hands then theirs, as each generation grows so to will the issues that challenge their survival and methods to cope.

Survival for each person at anytime anywhere will be different.

One thing - have a look at the body language by each speaker. in the doc and evaluation.

Basically humans take in information comfortable and resist opposing infomation. The only thing I know is that the world has never had to sustain this population under these conditions - anything is possible.

Prospector said:

Hey Smurf, I was thinking of you when we were in Tasmania!

I know you mentioned it is dry, but I was surprised to see how dry it was. And that Lake you talk about - is that in the midlands area? We did bring the rain though last Friday! Adelaide is dry, Melbourne though, is even drier, well up until last Friday.

I reckon we saw more dead wildlife along the road than anywhere else, including Kangaroo Island, which we call 'dead kangaroo island' because of all the road kill. Even saw a huge wombat upside down (dead) in the middle of the road - heaven help any car that hit that one during the night.

Gosh Tasmania is beautiful though!

Click to expand...

I did the Adelaide - Melbourne - Hobart trip about 6 weeks ago. Melbourne sure is dry. You'd be amazed how dry it was 3 months ago in Tas - we've had a LOT of rain since then and it's looking a lot better than it did before that.

If you flew over a big lake that's nowhere near full in the central highlands then that would be Great Lake, a natural lake enlarged by various dams and diversions that sits near the geographic centre of Tas.

As for the animals, that's a huge problem that always shocks visitors. I've got an assortment of wallabies over the back fence and two months ago I found a potteroo running around the kitchen. I'm 8km from the city centre.

2020hindsight said:

Then came the ABC's program with discussion by panel of experts :-
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates (in 9 parts)

Click to expand...

Apologies , I posted the wrong link for part 3 of 9 . Corrected list follows :-

If you watch none of the others, at least watch this one. A complete conman - trying to squirm his way out of these blatant untruths. Sorry mate, the plum in your mouth doesn't cover up your lack of cred on this occasion

PS Tony Jones should have been a barrister

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovluo-FdIp4 part 3 – 10m
embedded :-
part 3 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ part 1 of 9 – 1m45s

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F25gZvmMJJM part 2 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovluo-FdIp4 part 3 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4jnddLoIQ part 4 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U-r8dtdLMls part 5 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cH8JMMew8 part 6 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc part 7 – 10m
CO2 follows and provides feedback; procrastination penalty , level of risk, etc

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yYaAlyu8vbA part 8 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=96Cb3sWjRGY part 9 of 9 – 3m50s

Click to expand...

Now the solar activity is very interesting.

It has been rather quite on the sun lately. Do you expect alot of activity in flares and events we can measure suddenly?

If so how would you translate this in temperature, the moon gravity pulls?

I do believe all is interconnected with the sun and there will be sudden activity, not sure how this will effect earth though it will be noticeable.

Green08 said:

Now the solar activity is very interesting.

It has been rather quite on the sun lately. Do you expect alot of activity in flares and events we can measure suddenly?

If so how would you translate this in temperature, the moon gravity pulls?

I do believe all is interconnected with the sun and there will be sudden activity, not sure how this will effect earth though it will be noticeable.

Click to expand...

You are right and the forecast is ...

A solar wind stream flowing from the indicated coronal hole should reach Earth on or about Dec. 22nd

Click to expand...

Wysiwyg said:

You are right and the forecast is ...dec 22nd

Click to expand...

Well don't just stop there! Now we are moving ahead.

I have to say the poor earth must feel like a flea ridden dog that's be itching for ages to shake the irritation off!!

Which site do you obtain your solar information from. There are many. I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.

Green08 said:

My first question is to you or Wayne.

Do you believe what you see and is what you saw 'real' (acceptable for you) or is what you saw what someone else would like you to come to a conclusion on?
(I ask my daughter this all the time - you don't achieve much housework!)

Click to expand...

Very good question Green which I'd like to answer. But if I may do so at some later time... when I have more time.

Stay tuned.

Cheers

Green08 said:

Which site do you obtain your solar information from. There are many. I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.

Click to expand...

Well to the weatherman of course.Some great information if info. overload is what you`re looking for.Ohhh the internet.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

and for the latest movie
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_eit_171.mpg

Green08 said:

Well don't just stop there! Now we are moving ahead.
I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.

Click to expand...

It wouldn`t be complete without a toob video with easy to understand explanations.Especially how sunspots are formed by the currents of superheated gas creating magnetic fields.
It`s all done with mirr uhhh magnetism.

I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently. His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc

No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.

Julia said:

I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently. His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc

No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.

Click to expand...

Prof. Carter is critical of

uninformed politicians who seek political advantage by cynical exploitation of the public's fear of global warming.

Click to expand...

It is ironic that the alarmists are now attacking their former champion Mr Rudd for not being cynically exploitive enough.

Julia said:

I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently. His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc

No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link Julia, very interesting.

An article I found from his site contains some very important points regarding:

1. Temperature graphs being bandied around and particularly the one posted regularly on this forum.
   
2. The motivation to tend to alarmist conclusions, viz, funding etc.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...e-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html

California to stick to 1990 levels by 2020 :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming
Note that were these to be adopted nationally in US, the Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that there would be a saving of USD $26 billion to motorists. No wonder Exxon are also "concerned".

... 195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally. [7]

On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance.

The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [8] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Gov. Schwarzenegger also announced he would seek to work with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and various other international efforts to address global warming, independently of the federal government. [32]

Click to expand...

Arizona going the same / similar way
to hold to 2000 levels by 2020

On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[9]

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the US Fed Govt has shown "intransigence, despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities".

"The oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production".

The moderate political viewpoint has been largely abandoned in the US due to Congress' inability to pass any significant CO2 regulation despite the overwhelming popular support for such measures. Also there is substantial evidence showing that the oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production.[3]

Given the US government's intransigence despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities, the political rhetoric has become more extreme if only to get government to move even slightly in the direction of CO2 control.[4]

Click to expand...

Incidentally, here's the White Paper:-
(and I'm betting that the Libs will pass it in the Senate).
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/report/index.html

After all, in Aus, both major parties are pro action on GW. (I think lol)

And in the recent US elections, Obama, Biden, and McCain were all pro-action, with the only contrary opinion coming from Palin. It will be real interesting to see where the US goes after 20 Jan. Certainly fewer options than before the economic disaster hit, but who knows. Likewise (hopefully) the recession has bought a bit of breathing space.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollu...ustralias_Low_Pollution_Future_Summary-02.asp

The Australian Government has identified climate change as one of its highest policy priorities. The Government’s climate change policy is built on three pillars:

reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions;
adapting to climate change that we cannot avoid; and
helping to shape a global solution.
The Government has adopted a long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050, and is considering the scale and timing of the emission reductions Australia should pursue towards this goal.

As a party to the Kyoto Protocol, Australia is obliged to limit its national greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 108 per cent of 1990 levels during the Kyoto commitment period (2008 to 2012). Post-2012 targets for developed countries are being negotiated internationally, with negotiations scheduled to conclude in Copenhagen in 2009.

Click to expand...

As for trends :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Market trend
Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit, 374 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) were exchanged through projects in 2005, a 240% increase relative to 2004 (110 mtCO2e)[40] which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003 (78 mtCO2e).[41]

In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the carbon market was 11 billion USD in 2005, 30 billion USD in 2006[40], and 64 billion in 2007[42].

Click to expand...

Some notes on the US situation ...
(apart from leaning on car manufacturers to make smaller cars) :-

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2007 increased by 75.9 million metric tons (1.3 percent) compared with 2006 emissions (see Figure 5 on right), to 6,022 million metric tons (MMT). The increase offset a 1.4-percent drop in 2006 (to 5,946 MMT), raising the total back close to the 2005 level (6,032 MMT).

The important factors that contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2007 included: unfavorable weather, with both heating and cooling degree-days above 2006 levels (see discussion on "Weather Effects on energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2006 and 2007");

and the combination of a 2.5-percent increase in electricity demand

and a 14.2-percent decline in hydropower generation that resulted in a 2.9-percent increase in emissions from the electric power sector.

Click to expand...

more demand, less hydro to provide it

Overall, it looks like the US CO2 output has gone up 17% in 17 years.

Stern's argument :- That it's cheaper to take action now than not to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/09/scienceandnature.climatechange

A number of recent publications assess the costs versus the benefits of action to combat climate change. Among the most influential, and the most hotly contested, is the Stern review on the economics of climate change, a dense 692-page argument, published last year, the most famous finding of which is that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting". Nicholas Stern's argument was challenged almost immediately in Cool It by the Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press).

Lomborg does not doubt that global warming is occurring, nor that it is caused by humans, but almost alone among commentators he finds reason to welcome it. In Europe, he explains, only 200,000 people die from excess heat each year, while 1.5 million die from cold. His message is simple: more warming, less death. Lomborg's style is marked by glib, misleading associations. Even if the sea rises, Lomborg says, we shouldn't worry - we'll just put up dykes. With dykes, he asserts, some nations might end up with more land than they have today.

And so the arguments go on, from rising seas to extreme weather events to malaria and other tropical diseases, the collapse of the Gulf Stream, food shortages and water shortages. In one case after another, Lomborg asserts that it's cheaper and better to do nothing immediate to combat climate change, but to invest in adapting to its consequences. It is in great contrast to Stern's painstaking and detailed analysis, and it entirely fails to dent Stern's case.

Click to expand...

and a quote (paraphrased) that I read somewhere ...

We turn environmental capital (global health, oceans, air, biodiversity, etc into a sterile multistorey concrete building surrounded by asphalt (or cash for that matter) ... and say we've made a 'profit'.