explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
So I suppose you are actually hoping for a cataclysmic global warming which will wipe out all those superfluous people who can't adapt. Or do you have a solution?
Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.
And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs. This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.
And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia. And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.
Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.
Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is:However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.
Solar Influences on Climate - Professor Joanna Haigh - Feb 2011 - Grantham Institute for Climate Change : http://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cli...r Influences on Climate_Executive Summary.pdf
..However, the response of climate on regional scales to changes in the composition and intensity of incident solar radiation is more complex. This is an area of active research and, while significant progress has been made, definitive answers require further investigation into effects such as the role of stratospheric ozone, oceanatmosphere interactions and the role of clouds..
Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.
And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs. This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.
And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia. And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.
Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.
Within that [Ice Age] article.....Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is:
What she might also have said is that she is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment, and acted on many UK and international panels.
So I think we can see where Prof. Haigh sits in the scheme of things. She would have us believe that the all-powerful trace gas CO2, now known to follow temperature changes, not lead them, is more powerful than the Sun!
Prof. Haigh, is winter colder than summer?
Speculative and misleading nonsense, aimed at the gullible.
Within that article
None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.
Are these possibilities hysteria
Quite seriously, that's an excellent idea. To whom would you apply for funding?I wonder what level of research funding I would get to study whether man made CO2 is driving the sunspot cycle.
A google scholar search showed me that this is a truly original idea, and I would probably do the research for a 7-8 figure payment.
Now now, its not genocide if you're not 'choosy'so whats your solution? cull a few billion ppl to reduce the population? its been tried before and has a name... its called genocide!! refer to previous posts on this thread related to the topic
And further to the misrepresentations published in this News Ltd story and elsewhere:Is Another Little Ice Age coming?.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1PaMGqq5d
From the National Solar Observatory press release on which the News Ltd story is partly based.In response to news inquiries and stories, Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement:
"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."
Over the next several decades there may be an overall (temporary) decline in solar activity but at this stage, this is speculative. Even if solar activity were to reach the record low levels seen in the 17th century Maunder Minimum (implying a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed, averaged over the globe, of 0.2-0.6 Wm-2), it would only partially offset the increased climate warming projected through the uncontrolled anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (equivalent to a trapping of heat energy of around 4 Wm-2 over the next century.
Apologies for taking so long to respond to this Julia. The question you originally asked was what's so bad about 2 degrees of warming. I'm commenting on the piece you quoted.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.
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.
Great contribution WG. Steven Hayward, Senior Fellow Pacific Research Institute, seems to think through the issues rationally and objectively. I like how he navigates a middle course on the issues, avoiding the artificial polarization of alarmist-denier.id recommend the alarmists in this thread or anyone for that matter to watch this video, this isnt the "tipping point", this isnt the "crucial decade"...http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html
I think the point that fossil carbon emissions to date already commit the earth to further warming is important. The state of the climate in 2020 is to a great extent already determined by past emissions. The urgency now is to prevent greater warming in later decades.Ghoti
CARMA reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.
http://carma.org/
Notice how Australia only has 2 that are on the radar?
So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"
And as a developed western nation our influenced on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit the technology of bringing about good change.
So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"
And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.
So you suggest we do nothing. Remember the film "The Castle"
And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort. In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.
So you suggest we do nothing.
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?