This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

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.
 

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

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.
 
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.
 
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."
 

Attachments

  • 250px-Apogee_(PSF).svg.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 154
  • aphelion.gif
    2.6 KB · Views: 150

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
 
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?
 
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
 
Found your source of information Wayne.


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


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.
 
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.
 
Give a dog a bad name.

Who is speaking for the plants?



.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8110
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...