The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm
Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record.
Really ??? So much for that theory then !
I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.
Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?
IOW the science ISN'T settled?
Lo!!
The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm
Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record.
Really ??? So much for that theory then !
I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:
i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?
Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?
The response to this new tax should be loud.As opposed to a loud another
The response to this new tax should be loud.
A government's underlying reason for new taxes are typically to raise more revenue with any other secondary reason to appease the public. Put another way, to pluck more from the goose with the minimum amount of squawk.
During the week, Wayne Swan in a lateline interview initially tried to dodge the issue of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax although, when pressed did still indicate it would be broadly revenue neutral in line with an earlier comment from Penny Wong.
From the government that brought us "No carbon tax under a government I lead" during the last election campain, it will be interesting to see exactly what "broadly revenue neutral" means.
Practice you loudest squawk.
The tax will make the economy less efficient which is why I am against it. They could have got similar results in other ways. This thread is not about the tax though, that belongs in the Gillard lies whatever it is called thread.
I quite accept that bias could be colouring my memory, knobby. Other factor is that - although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.Ah memory. Its a fascinating area. I'm going to post something on this under a different thread but memory is famously faulty. You can't trust it.
Some biases.
Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.
Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
Check this out for more memory biases that no one is immune from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
It would be interesting Julia if you went back in the records to where you were and see whether it was actually warmer. If you haven't time let me know the area and I will see if I can get the information.
Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.In my view the problenm with the environment warming rapidly over 50 years is that we can't predict all the events such as bigger storms? extinction of animals? more rain, more droughts? I think man cannot rate itself above nature and our biosphere. I suppose it is about risk. Say something really bad happened we didn't foresee??
...Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.
although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.
Any scientist would say that. Any skeptic would say this.
It is one thing saying it isn't settled to saying it is all rot!!
I agree Knobby - there are two different issues. One is the AGW controversy and the other is the carbon tax controversy.
However, while AGW is used as the excuse for carbon tax, it has merged the two and yet it is quite possible that, despite theories to the contrary, carbon tax will do next to nothing to help AGW. Bizarre...
It supported the theory, did you read what you posted????
Judging by the arguments some are now making against gas as a fuel, and to some extent I think they are likely correct, a carbon tax could actually make the situation worse (assuming we accept that both CO2 and CH4 (methane) are greenhouse gasses).Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.
No one has responded to my question above on the thread, but the following has come to me via an alternative source. Comments on it would be welcome.I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:
i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?
Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?
Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?
Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.
I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.
Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?
The current ecological systems are adapted to live inside the current temperature range. We don't see trees in very hot and relatively dry environments. Most crops won't grow if it gets too hot. A number of crops won't set fruit for example if there arn't enough cold nights. These are just a few examples of consequences of a rapid increase in temperatures. Some areas might indeed become more amenable to agriculture but lack of sufficient daylight (in the norther hemisphere) and poor soils will limit any potential advantage
There is also the likelihood that increases in temperatures will trigger tipping points in various ecological systems around the world releasing huge further amounts of CO2 that would drive temperatures even higher. Particular examples that have been noted are
1) Release of huge amounts of methane currently locked up in the permafrost.
2) Release of carbon in the soil as it gets warmer
3) Reduction of tree cover as higher temperatures destroy current forest areas. This would work in 2 ways. Firstly the dead trees would effectively release further CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly the (dead) trees would unable to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere
4) Warming oceans would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The colder the ocean the more CO2 it can hold.
The other issue with a warming world is that extreme heat waves would become far more common. The consequences of this eco systems would be fatal (not to mention us.)
The unfortunate part is that if we believe current scientific research the earth is already committed to at least another 1 degree of warming as result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere . (It just takes a few decades (which is nothing in geological time) for the warming effect to be fully felt. The point of reducing CO2 emissions now is to forstall even bigger temperatures increases.
...
Surely no planes flying means less pollutants in the air? Bit what about the CO2 that the volcano spewed out? HUH??:
I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.
I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.
Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side. We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change. It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.
"Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.
There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. "
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?