Resisting Climate Hysteria

[bellenuit]

The have promised to reduce the intensity of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of increase in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.

My understanding is a bit different. What they mean by reducing the intensity of their emissions is that they will use their energy more efficiently. In other words, they will emit less per unit of output. But they have no commitment to reducing or even slowing output, so that the net effect will be that they continue to increase emissions, but at a rate less than the increase in volume of output.

The rate of increase in emissions could actually increase, if the volume of output increases faster than currently.

So if they can cut emissions by 20% per unit of output, their emissions overall will increase by 80% if output doubles.

 

[Calliope]

My understanding is a bit different. What they mean by reducing the intensity of their emissions is that they will use their energy more efficiently. In other words, they will emit less per unit of output. But they have no commitment to reducing or even slowing output, so that the net effect will be that they continue to increase emissions, but at a rate less than the increase in volume of output.

The rate of increase in emissions could actually increase, if the volume of output increases faster than currently.

So if they can cut emissions by 20% per unit of output, their emissions overall will increase by 80% if output doubles.

You are right bellenuit. Intensity is defined as "amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product."

 

[bunyip]

We constantly hear that climate change is causing our oceans to rise and spread out over larger areas.


I came up with a different theory - no, a fact - that partly explains rising sea levels.
Here it is.....

Toss a shovel full of dirt into a bucket half full of water. The water level immediately rises in the bucket.

The same thing happens to our oceans every day of the year. Erosion from wind and water causes billions of tons of dirt to be deposited into our oceans, making them shallower and causing the water to rise and spread out over a wider area.
That big dust storm over eastern Australia back in September dumped many millions of tons of dirt into the sea. And that one was just a baby compared to the dust storms that are virtually an every day occurrence in some of the desert areas of the world.
And there must be millions of streams worldwide that deposit dirt into the sea.
I boated along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea many years ago in February when it was in flood at the height of the wet season . It's a massive, fast flowing river that was constantly brown with dirt.....it must deposit an immense tonnage of soil in the sea each year. And that's just one of many thousands of rivers.

I'm not suggesting this is the entire reason why our oceans are rising, but it's one that I've never seen put forward before.
Erosion is definitely a contributing factor to rising sea levels - just how much of a contribution is the question.

 

[Knobby22]

Don't forget icebergs!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766458.htm
Click on the picture to see where it is.

 

[bellenuit]

Don't forget icebergs!

Best forget them. Their melting doesn't cause sea levels to rise. Think Archimedes.

 

[derty]

Best forget them. Their melting doesn't cause sea levels to rise. Think Archimedes.

Though their falling into the ocean does.

The one linked to by knobby calved off the Ross Ice Shelf so it was already sitting in the ocean before calving.

 

[noco]

We constantly hear that climate change is causing our oceans to rise and spread out over larger areas.


I came up with a different theory - no, a fact - that partly explains rising sea levels.
Here it is.....

Toss a shovel full of dirt into a bucket half full of water. The water level immediately rises in the bucket.

The same thing happens to our oceans every day of the year. Erosion from wind and water causes billions of tons of dirt to be deposited into our oceans, making them shallower and causing the water to rise and spread out over a wider area.
That big dust storm over eastern Australia back in September dumped many millions of tons of dirt into the sea. And that one was just a baby compared to the dust storms that are virtually an every day occurrence in some of the desert areas of the world.
And there must be millions of streams worldwide that deposit dirt into the sea.
I boated along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea many years ago in February when it was in flood at the height of the wet season . It's a massive, fast flowing river that was constantly brown with dirt.....it must deposit an immense tonnage of soil in the sea each year. And that's just one of many thousands of rivers.

I'm not suggesting this is the entire reason why our oceans are rising, but it's one that I've never seen put forward before.
Erosion is definitely a contributing factor to rising sea levels - just how much of a contribution is the question.

Another theory which is worth considering is those small coral atolls like Kiribati may be sinking due to plates moving in the ring of fire. I can't believe that one or a few of these low lying atolls are affected by rising sea levels to the extent claimed, while other islands are not affected.

I also observed photos of ice melting in the Arctic. These photos were all taken in July/August; the northern hemisphere suumer.

My youngest son is currently working in Antarctica and he informed me three weeks ago they had to walk 4 nautical miles from the Aurora Australis to Davis base due to the fact the ice was 2 metres thick and too thick for the ship to break. However, his latest news reveals personal are forbidden from walking on that same ice because it is now too thin. Summer is now in Ant Arctica and boats can now sail into Davis base.

 

[noco]

I have just read an article put out by Money Morning ,"How your super will be spent in Copenhagen", together with a Copenhagen draft agreement.

Do people realize what The Rudd Government is trying to commit us to?

If it is all true, then this crazy Government of ours has got to be stopped.

Anyone who is interested in reading this article should contact
moneymorning@moneymorning.com.au for a free subscription.

I tried to get a direct link; unfortuneatly I was not successful.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Here are some interesting agreements to ponder. (They call me the ponderer, lol). This planets elliptical orbit of the sun.

"It takes roughly 365 days for the Earth to go around the Sun once. This means that the Earth is rushing through space around the Sun at a rate of about 67,000 miles per hour! The time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun one full time is what we call a year."

"In celestial mechanics, an apsis, plural apsides (pronounced /ˈæpsɨdiːz/) is the point of greatest or least distance of the elliptical orbit of an object from its center of attraction, which is generally the center of mass of the system."

"Derivative terms are used to identify the body being orbited. The most common are perigee and apogee, referring to orbits around the Earth (Greek γῆ, gê, "earth"), and perihelion and aphelion, referring to orbits around the Sun (Greek ἥλιος, hēlios, "sun"). During the Apollo program, the terms pericynthion and apocynthion were used when referring to the moon."

 

[-Bevo-]

I have just read an article put out by Money Morning ,"How your super will be spent in Copenhagen", together with a Copenhagen draft agreement.

Do people realize what The Rudd Government is trying to commit us to?

If it is all true, then this crazy Government of ours has got to be stopped.

Anyone who is interested in reading this article should contact
moneymorning@moneymorning.com.au for a free subscription.

I tried to get a direct link; unfortuneatly I was not successful.

Hi noco I just found this on the web haven't read it all yet but it refers to what your talking about.

http://www.asxnewbie.com/General-Content/General/how-your-super-will-be-spent-in-copenhagen.html

 

[noco]

Hi noco I just found this on the web haven't read it all yet but it refers to what your talking about.

http://www.asxnewbie.com/General-Content/General/how-your-super-will-be-spent-in-copenhagen.html

Yeah, that's the one. Thanks Bevo. ASF members can now go direct on Bevo's link. Scary stuff.

 

[basilio]

Can we play a game of pretend for a minute? Let's say that the rapidly rising CO2 levels arn't related to climate change.. Right. ?

Would it still be worthwhile to take some dramatic action to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent the rising acidification of the oceans and damage this is causing to the ocean environment? And of course we as humans will be very, very affected by these outcomes?

Just a thought...

Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows

Report launched from leading marine scientists at Copenhagen summit shows seas absorbing dangerous levels of CO2

The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned.

A report by more than 100 of Europe's leading marine scientists, released at the climate talks this morning, states that the seas are absorbing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as a direct result of human activity. This is already affecting marine species, for example by interfering with whale navigation and depleting planktonic species at the base of the food chain.

The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. Many of the effects of this acidification are already irreversible and are expected to accelerate, according to the scientists.

The study, which is a massive review of existing scientific studies, warns that if CO2 emissions continue unchecked many key parts of the marine environment – particularly coral reefs and the algae and plankton which are essential for fish such as herring and salmon – will be "severely affected" by 2050, leading to the extinction of some species.

Dr Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, which co-sponsored the report, said: "The threat to the delicate balance of the marine environment cannot be overstated - this is a conservation challenge of unprecedented scale and highlights the urgent need for effective marine management and protection."

Although oceans have acidified naturally in the past, the current rate of acidification is so fast that it is becoming extremely difficult for species and habitats to adapt. "We're counting it in decades, and that's the real take-home message," said Dr John Baxter a senior scientist with Scottish Natural Heritage, and the report's co-author. "This is happening fast."

..... Congressman Brian Baird, a Democrat representative from Washington state, who championed a bill in Congress promoting US research on ocean acidification, said these findings would help counter climate change sceptics, since acidification was easily and immediately measurable.

"The consequences of ocean acidification may be every bit as grave as the consequences of temperature increases," he said. "It's one thing to question a computer extrapolation, or say it snowed in Las Vegas last year, but to say basic chemistry doesn't apply is a real problem [for the sceptics]. I think the evidence is really quite striking."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

Would it just be possible to consider this as a serious, serious environmental problem which has to be addressed now as distinct from some theoretical construct which should be ignored ?

 

[wayneL]

Can we play a game of pretend for a minute? Let's say that the rapidly rising CO2 levels arn't related to climate change.. Right. ?

Would it still be worthwhile to take some dramatic action to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent the rising acidification of the oceans and damage this is causing to the ocean environment? And of course we as humans will be very, very affected by these outcomes?

Just a thought...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

Would it just be possible to consider this as a serious, serious environmental problem which has to be addressed now as distinct from some theoretical construct which should be ignored ?

You see, these alarmist numpties shoot their own credibility out of the sky with their own BS. From the UK Pravda article:

The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution.

The truth:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).

That's not 30% is it?

How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?

 

[spooly74]

That's not 30% is it?

Nope

How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?

Acid/ification mentioned 9 times in that article. Oceans with a Ph of 8.
Less 'alkaline' doesn't quite pack a punch.

 

[basilio]

Quote:
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).
That's not 30% is it?

How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?

Because it's a logarithmic scale Wayne.... Exactly the same way as an earthquake measured at 7 on the Richter scale is 10 times more powerful than one measuring 6. But I'm sure you are only too aware of this simple scientific fact. And by the way where did you find that particular figure ? I havn't come across it yet.

And of course one (anyone ) could have quoted the report from the original source or a score of any other reputable news sources. But naturally if it comes from "Pravda" you (wayne) have to dribble that this can't possibly be anything worth considering ...

The point about the whole research is that ocean acidification is clearly and easily measured. It's effects are also clear and the long term term consequences are as obvious and dramatic as falling off a 20 story building.

Or do we have yet another example of a entire branch of scientists creating yet another false set of data with made up science theories ? Why won't I be surprised when you and every other denier jumps on that particular bandwagon ?

For those who might like to view the report in full check out

http://www.epoca-project.eu/images/RUG/oa_guide_english.pdf

 

[basilio]

Found your source of information Wayne.

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere[/B[/B]].[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-key04-2

Nice detailed and quite complex article which corresponds to the Epoca publication. Not surprising of course because they quote from the same leading scientists in the field.

The question remains. Do we view the consequences of continuing CO2 absorption in the oceans as serious enough to rapidly reduce our emissions ? Does this come under the heading of addressing real environmental problems ?

 

[basilio]

A little more background on ocean acidification, the science behind it and the consequences for the oceans and us

Increasing Ocean Acidity as a Consequence of the Buildup of Atmospheric CO2 - Implications for the Present and the Future:

Ocean acidification (ocean chemistry change) is a highly predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Surface ocean chemistry changes resulting from changes in atmospheric composition can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.

Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. Ocean acidification and climate change are both effects of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but they are completely different; ocean acidification depends on the chemistry of carbon dioxide whereas climate change depends on the physics of carbon dioxide.

If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. There is some uncertainty both in the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and future atmospheric concentrations and in inferred past ocean chemistry, but these uncertainties do not throw into doubt the fact that we are producing highly unusual chemical conditions in the world's oceans. Right now, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.

Ocean acidification of these amounts and at these rates could be expected to have major negative impacts on corals and other marine organisms that build their shells or skeletons out of carbonate minerals. When carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean it forms carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is corrosive to carbonate minerals. The impact on other categories of marine organisms is less clear, but there is likely to be disruptions through the entire marine food chain. The potential for ecological or micro-evolutionary adaptation is unclear at this time; however, both in today's ocean and over geologic time the rate of accumulation of shells and skeletons made from carbonate minerals shows a consistent relationship with ocean chemical conditions indicating that the success of these organisms is largely controlled by marine chemistry.

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/51005ESSS.html

This came from a presentation in 2005. The current Epocia report represents the up to date research on this topic. And obviously scientists have been aware and concerned about it for many years. It wasn't just thrown up for Copenhagen.

 

[wayneL]

Because it's a logarithmic scale Wayne.... Exactly the same way as an earthquake measured at 7 on the Richter scale is 10 times more powerful than one measuring 6. But I'm sure you are only too aware of this simple scientific fact. And by the way where did you find that particular figure ? I havn't come across it yet.

And of course one (anyone ) could have quoted the report from the original source or a score of any other reputable news sources. But naturally if it comes from "Pravda" you (wayne) have to dribble that this can't possibly be anything worth considering ...

The point about the whole research is that ocean acidification is clearly and easily measured. It's effects are also clear and the long term term consequences are as obvious and dramatic as falling off a 20 story building.

Or do we have yet another example of a entire branch of scientists creating yet another false set of data with made up science theories ? Why won't I be surprised when you and every other denier jumps on that particular bandwagon ?

For those who might like to view the report in full check out

http://www.epoca-project.eu/images/RUG/oa_guide_english.pdf

Basilio, The Guardian has well known links to the Fabian movement. You obviously didn't notice from other threads I was pretty deep into the bowels of UK politics and was a member of a liberal think-tank for some time. I know the agendas out there. "Pravda" is an apt metaphor for the Grauniad. It's extreme left bias does indeed make it dribble not worth reading - no attempt at balance.

If acidification is a problem then yes I am concerned about it, but I have seen science that refutes the alarmist view. Some of it I have linked to. Some of it totally destroys the whole acidification projection model the IPPC are relying on. That's not surprising.

Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% more acidic than 8.179.

Edit to add>> Though "acidification is the correct term for lowering of pH, even in alkaline environment, as Spooly points out, the oceans are alkaline. So the correct question is Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% less alkaline than 8.179.

It should also be pointed out that pH varies naturally in the ocean by the magnitude of 0.2 or 0.3, At least TEN TIMES the purported average decrease over a 250 year period. At face value it would make that insignificant.

I am a greenie and supported Greenpeace before I realized they sold out to the Goreists. But real issues please. The oceans face an enormous threat from humans, but it's nothing to do with acidification.

 

[Calliope]

Give a dog a bad name.

Who is speaking for the plants?

The full proverb says, “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.” They’ve given carbon dioxide (CO2) a bad name and it is now being hanged by draconian and completely unnecessary legislation. Consider this comment by Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist, “I think you have to think about this stuff (CO2) as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we’ll be,” An alarmist, outrageous and completely unsupportable comment, but not surprising from the co-chair of Working Group I of the IPCC 2007 report.

The reality is if CO2 is reduced we are worse off as the plants suffer. Something must be done to protect the plants from fanaticism.

So you have the paradox of environmentalists screaming to reduce CO2 to save the planet, while putting all life in jeopardy by killing the plants. It is blind faith. But this is not surprising because the great problem of environmentalism as a religion is the failure to do full and proper cost/benefit analyses. For example, all you ever hear about are the down sides to warming when there are actually more up sides. One major downside rarely mentioned is the impact on plants of reduced CO2 levels

.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8110

 

[Calliope]

Carbon Dioxide - The Breath of Life