The coming ice age?

[2020hindsight]

I'm not proposing it, just posted it for interest and as a counterpoint.

But for the record, ploughing up the permafrost is a ludicrous idea... IMO.

But have you ever heard of brainstorming? Look it up.

we call them summits these days.

http://www.australia2020.gov.au/topics/economy.cfm

Simply put, our current energy mix is too carbon intensive for the era of global warming. For instance, hydro and other forms of renewable power make up only around one-tenth of our energy use. Despite this, we are well positioned to succeed in areas where demand is set to increase through the introduction of an emissions trading system.

So new ideas will be needed to exploit our potential in areas like: carbon capture and storage; geothermal, solar and other renewable energy sources; and eco-system services – all of which have huge export and job creation potential that can benefit every Australian.

 

[skint]

skint
1. but you agree that it requires attention yes?
2. totally agree. Bludy worry.
3. Personally I'm not making preparations for the end of the world - I'm trying to minimise the damage.

So many threads on this now
"Global Cooling?"
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
etc

So back about Oct Nov 2007 last year I started that poll.
"Global Warming How Valid and Serious"
The results ?
83% think it makes sense to act. (even if not all are convinced it's manmade).

simple. - let's act.
If you don't like corrective action for the sake of the planet, or the critters - then look on it as an economic opportunity.

Hey 20/20,

1. Damn straight.
2.Very BIG bludy worry.
3. Agree. Things can pretty ugly without humanity becoming extinct etc.. As you point out, it doesn't really matter whether the effects of climate change are viewed from an economic, social, humanitarian or purely environmental perspective. We have a situation that needs addressing.

Perhaps you could re-post the Youtube clip with David 'Rabbitborough'. The one where he is on a basketball court and discusses two overlaid graphs. The first of historic global temperatures, and the second of historic temperatures after controlling for known influences of temperature such as sunspots and volcanos. The two graphs almost perfectly correlate until the 1970's. Bit thick. Not sure how to post it.

 

[Happy]

I am happy either way, I try to make my footprint smallest I can.

Irrespective of warming or cooling, looks that food will be bigger problem than it is now.

If anything I would reopen euthanasia debate including forced one not to mention birth control after abolishing baby bonus of course.

 

[2020hindsight]

... the Youtube clip with David 'Rabbitborough'. The one where he is on a basketball court and discusses two overlaid graphs. The first of historic global temperatures, and the second of historic temperatures after controlling for known influences of temperature such as sunspots and volcanos.

I posted it back there at #75 - but what the heck , here it is again .. He has apparently done a brilliant series on this - there will no doubt be more youtubes in the future. And he originally came at the problem with a healthy Doubting Thomas scepticism.

Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned enough are the various feedback effects....

The more CO2 the higher the temperature, - the more heat the more CO2 ; it's a two-way dependence.

Likewise the more melting of the (highly reflective) icecaps, the more absorption of heat in the ocean, thence more melting, more absorption, etc .

The more melting of ice, the more methane is released (currently locked) - yet another GHG - more feedback - etc.

This is a long term stategy here.!
IPCC say if we can reduce CO2e emmissions by 1.9% per annum then we will avoid increasing the earth's temp by more than 2 deg C. That is do-able.

But if we wait seven years, (maybe 10 years I forget) - we will have to reduce by 2.5% per annum, and that will start to bite pretty hard.

 

[skint]

Cheers m8, Limiting the increase in temp to 2 degrees is the figure that is consistently put forward due to the feedback/snowballing effects you mentioned. We agree on the situation needing to be dealt with in a serious way, but are you an optimist or pessemist, given the glacial rate of change on these issues globally? Maybe we shold run a poll on people's expectations of the chances of sufficient and successful interventions.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. are you an optimist or pessemist, given the glacial rate of change on these issues globally?
2. Maybe we shold run a poll on people's expectations of the chances of sufficient and successful interventions.

1. I'm more of an optimist since Howard was "promoted sideways"
Also since that poll that showed that the majority are in favour of action - despite the more numerous posters being against it.

2. There already is a thread / poll out there - intended to check if people had the determination to take the IPCC message FULLY on board ... "Which IPCC Scenario is your guess? "

it concludes "middle road" , 2.8 degC -
better than nothing I guess.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9468&highlight=ipcc

The A1B scenario is a more integrated world approach.
Rapid economic growth.
A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.

The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.
Fossil fuels are reduced - a balanced emphasis on all energy sources.

This A1B scenario gives the 2.8degC rise I mentioned.
Mind you, A1F1 is more or less the same except that fossil fuels are allowed free reign - so despite a coordinated effort, we still get 4degC with that option.

 

[wayneL]

simple. - let's act.
If you don't like corrective action for the sake of the planet, or the critters -

I agree with that, but as mentioned ad nauseum previously, wrong focus.

The other thing I see is that the AGW alarmists don't actually do anything themselves, only want the peons to act. There even those who absolve themselves of responsibility because they are "spreading the word" One of our members here even admitted to this. Pfffft

They continue to have a large footprint, work for companies with huge footprints etc.

...unless of course there is $,000,000s involved.

Excuse me while I have a cynicism attack.

There are big problems, but I think there is a causation error/separate agenda in the whole debate... and the science is woeful in its bias.

Why? ==>> $$$$$$$$$$$

Follow the money

 

[Julia]

Could some knowledgeable person kindly list the reasons why we are having/going to have a worldwide shortage of food?

Here in Qld there are presently considerable drops in food prices, following higher than usual prices throughout most of summer. I haven't noticed anything other than the usual cyclical variations.

 

[Smurf1976]

gg, don't worry about me m8 , lol
Smurf might tear you to pieces though

and smurf
there's also a limit on how long you can keep flogging the Franklin on GW threads

For the record, I've seen the river and I'd prefer it flowing naturally rather than trough turbines from a purely conservation perspective.

There is only one reason for mentioning it and it's NOT advocating that the dam be built. It's this:

We use fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, only because they are the easy option. You just build the factory, power station, car or whatever and buy fuel to run it. Easy. And there's no radioactive waste to store, minimal non-CO2 air pollution and not even any ash to dispose of. Oil and gas are easy in every way.

But oil and gas are limited and that's the problem. They also add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. If we're going to use ANYTHING else then there's a downside somewhere.

Coal - Even more CO2 plus ash, smoke and all the rest.

Renewables - The ALL have a conservation downside just like the Franklin. Clean power for sure, and that is all the Franklin was ever about, but it comes at a price in terms of something else.

Wind turbines could very well lead to outright exitinction of some bird species. That's a rather big price to pay for some intermittent power generation.

Solar pollutes massively in manufacture. It isn't seriously a clean option at all.

Hydro - we all know what that involves and indeed it literally started the world's first Green party.

Biomass - Do the math and you'll realise it just doesn't work unless we're talking about native forest clearfelling to fuel power stations which is hardly what I'd call a good alternative to anything.

Wave - Just wait until the Greens start about the coast line.

Tidal - That's just a dam built at sea level.

Nuclear - Again, the greens don't want that either.

Geothermal - that means lots of long distance transmission lines. These are, of course, opposed by the greens.

ALL POWER POLLUTES. ALL. And Every non-oil / gas option involves some form of pollution that is far more visible than CO2 whether it be dead birds, dams, clearfelled forests or transmission lines running everywhere.

Bottom line is that we will not fix the CO2 problem unless we accept some other form of environmental impact instead or end the notion of constant growth. With mainstream environmentalists opposing any form of non-CO2 impact and not pushing for an end to growth, it just doesn't work.

As has been said many times in relation to that dam, either we develop renewables in some form or it's a triple F - Fossil Fuels Forever.

People support cutting CO2 in principle. Just wait until they realise what it actually involves. Odds are many of the anti-CO2 people will be out there protesting wind farms, transmission lines, diesel cars, nuclear all forms of hydro power and everything else that could actually help the situation.

The Franklin is by far the best example of all of this and that's why I refer to it. Consider for a moment if that debate were being held today - it wouldn't be dams versus the wilderness but climate change versus a river. I don't know anyone, conservationists included, who is confident what the outcome of such a debate would be. Practically every single issue that was relevant last time isn't relevant now so it would be a very different debate.

In my opinion fear of that is why the Greens themselves keep mentioning it every few months - to shore up the position that it's saved. Not that anyone's proposing to dam it, but it's clear to all that there's a massive shift afoot in underlying community attitudes towards energy and the environment in general, the implications of which are not clear for that specific issue.

It's sustainability versus conservation. If you do not accept some modification of the natural environment beyond that which is already happening then you can't develop any significant renewable energy. And if we don't develop renewables then we're stuck with fossil fuels. Hence the issue I have with conservationists opposed to everything - the Franklin is simply by far the best known example, a bit like saying "Detroit" when you really mean the US car manufacturing industry in general.

 

[The Once-ler]

Could some knowledgeable person kindly list the reasons why we are having/going to have a worldwide shortage of food?

.

There's about 3 threads going already about food and food supply, so your being a bit lazy.


However, these are some reasons.


Oil.
Oil is food. Food takes fertilizer, chemical and energy, all derived from oil, so food is rising with oil.

Water.
Water is being over used for irrigation, especially in India, China and the Middle East. Water aquifers are dropping. Rivers are drying up.

Climate change.
It's getting wetter in the wet spots and dryer in the dry spots, but grain is mainly grown in dryer areas, so grain yields are struggling to keep up to demand.

Population.
The worlds population is growing exponentially and is headed for 9 billion. Food production growth is starting to level out.

Biofuels.
A lot of grain and sugar is now being turned into fuel.

Global wealth.
The developing world is getting wealthier. So they are eating more meat, eggs, milk, which all needs grain.


Few other reasons, but that should keep you happy.

 

[metric]

good picture of al gore and global 'warming' .

www.rense.com

 

[Julia]

There's about 3 threads going already about food and food supply, so your being a bit lazy.

The Once-ler, No, I wasn't being lazy. Yes, I should have posted the question in the Food Shortage thread. I apologise for putting it here.
I asked the question because what I'd read in the other threads didn't really make clear to me (just stupid, perhaps) exactly why there was so much of a doomsday scenario being forecast.

As a species, we seem to have an immense talent for predicting disaster and focusing on all that can be negative. Therefore, I can't help wondering whether this is more of the same.

Thank you for your clearly set out reasons. I appreciate your time and trouble.

 

[2020hindsight]

I agree with that, but as mentioned ad nauseum previously, wrong focus.

The other thing I see is that the AGW alarmists don't actually do anything themselves, only want the peons to act. There even those who absolve themselves of responsibility because they are "spreading the word" One of our members here even admitted to this. Pfffft

They continue to have a large footprint, work for companies with huge footprints etc.

wayne, Well ‘wrong focus’ may be your opinion, but if 95% of your field of view is positive, (more reforestation, less destruction of habitat, less pollution of all types), and the other 5% is questionable (carbon capture etc) – but not damaging - then I’m not gonna get excited about the 5%. (especially as I'm convinced by the arguments in any case).

Hell just to get the concept of sustainability into everyone’s consciousness is a major achievement – even if it’s miles out in the future.

Had to look up “peon” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon

peon: In its obsolete usage in Spain itself, the word denoted a person who travelled by foot rather than on a horse (caballero).

Obviously I don’t have a problem with the peons – nor those who travel on horseback. On the contrary, the people who are gonna have to change their ways are the ones who drive unnecessarily big cars around the suburbs – and the car companys who sell them in preference to a small 4 cyl car.

More importantly, the changeover to sustainable energy demand and supply.
- The Americans who selfishly insist they are entitled to produce heaps more CO2e per capita than some poorer countries, and refuse to ratify Kyoto.

- The Australians likewise – in fact we use even more per capita than the US does - (but at least we’ve ratified Kyoto) – and considering we have a trivial amount of manufacturing, we sure manage to generate a lot of CO2e. – i.e. all we do is dig up the ore, and then we criticise the manufacturing member of the team ( i.e. China) for turning it into steel.

If I was in govt there would be a carbon tax on 4x4s for instance. Not that I don’t have a lot of mates who drive them. If the concept of a “carbon tax” jarrs due to ‘wrong focus’ whatever, then call it a pollution tax, or a resource tax – exactly the same thing in the long run.

One person who is ‘spreading the word’ is your mate David Suzuki. (he who wants to hold politicians who ignore global warming legally liable.)

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513

In fact he puts the first of 10 “things you can do to counter GW” as follows

“1. Get informed and get involved, watch films and newspapers about GW, then tell your neighbours co-workers friends family and community groups about ways to reduce global warming .…

2. Fly less
3. Take public transport , car pools
4. recycle trash
5. energy efficient home.
etc”

btw, I emailed David Suzuki and invited him to contribute to the forum, but his office says you have to write snail mail -
So I figured he's hardly likely to email back

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513

Craig Offman, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008
David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime.

Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.

… Addressing the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability, hosted by the Faculty of Management, Dr. Suzuki's wide-ranging speech warned against favouring the economy to the detriment of the ecology

…. "You have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period," he told students and fans.

... "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."

The statement elicited rounds of applause.
"He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, who covered the event. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue."

…….. How a law concerning climate-change denial could be enforced baffled at least one leading criminal-law expert. "We used to have an offence of spreading false news," said Kent Roach, the Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. "But that was struck down by the Supreme Court."

Kyoto maybe?

Yet there could be a better blueprint for Dr. Suzuki's legal scenario.

The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a Liberal-sponsored private member's bill that passed and was given Royal Assent last year, legally requires the Conservative government to abide by the international pact's short-term environmental targets.

In the event that conditions are not met, government officials are held liable. "Every person who contravenes a regulation made under this Act is guilty of an offence punishable by indictment or on summary conviction, as prescribed by the regulations," the act reads, "and liable to a fine or to imprisonment as prescribed by the regulations."

The act adds that there are further legal measures in the event of subsequent and continuing offences, but does not specify the penalties.
The Conservative government said last year it would not abide by the Liberal-sponsored bill, since private member's bills cannot force the government to spend money.

 

[wayneL]

2020,

The real solution would involve trashing both the economy in its current form, and indeed the whole monetary system itself.

There will be fiddling around the edges, as long as there is a profit/gu'mint revenue motive, but nothing addressing the core problems.

Self interest is a more powerful motive than community interest, hence the actions of the likes of Al Bore.... make money by "spreading the message" but still live an indulgent, unsustainable lifestyle; hypocrisy of the highest order.

Big Al would never have become a messenger if there wasn't $$$$ in it.

At least Suzuki walks the walk (as far as I know) to some extent, even if wrong on AGW.

 

[disarray]

Big Al would never have become a messenger if there wasn't $$$$ in it.

i think you're being a bit rough on Al Gore. ok now he's in the media waving his flag around and collecting $$$ and all that stuff we are so cynical about (and rarely believe a word of), but i think the measure of the man is very telling.

i saw a doco and checked his wiki and, without knowing the guy, he seems to be quite visionary and a man of principle.

Gore's senior thesis at Harvard explored the impact of television on the conduct of the presidency. This thesis essentially stated that television had an inherent bias towards individuals over institutions which would bring more attention to the president than the other branches of governments. The thesis furthermore argued that the ability to communicate well visually was becoming crucial to governing

Gore opposed the Vietnam War and could have avoided serving overseas by accepting a spot in the National Guard that a friend of his family had reserved for him, or by other means of avoiding the draft. Gore has stated that his sense of civic duty compelled him to serve in some capacity. He enlisted in the United States Army on August 7, 1969. After basic training at Fort Dix, Gore was assigned as a military journalist writing for The Army Flier, the base newspaper at Fort Rucker. With seven months remaining in his enlistment, Gore was shipped to Vietnam, arriving on January 2, 1971. He served with the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa.

According to The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s."

Gore has been involved with the development of the Internet since the 1970s, first as a Congressman and later as Senator and Vice-President. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated in the 2000 article "Al Gore and the Internet", that Gore was "the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." His High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (often referred to as the Gore Bill) was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."

i don't mean to spam wiki quotes but compared to the dross we have serving in state parliaments lately his history paints him as principled, civic minded and getting started on environmental issues almost 40 years ago. for sure he's playing the media game (he must have re-read his graduate thesis) but if you want anything in america you have to use and exploit the media.

 

[2020hindsight]

2020,

1. The real solution would involve trashing both the economy in its current form, and indeed the whole monetary system itself.

2. There will be fiddling around the edges, as long as there is a profit/gu'mint revenue motive, but nothing addressing the core problems.

3. Self interest is a more powerful motive than community interest, hence the actions of the likes of Al Bore....Big Al would never have become a messenger if there wasn't $$$$ in it.

4. At least Suzuki walks the walk (as far as I know) to some extent, even if wrong on AGW.

1. well Stern and Garnaut disagree I suspect.
2. what core problems ? - are you admitting something or speculating? -

maybe you're referring to general pollution? hell , we have to try.

3. wayne
I haven't mentioned Al Gore for yonks - Ever since you started using his alleged hypocrisy as reason enough to dismiss any message he may or may not have – and objected to his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

So instead, I refer to the IPCC (the other half of that Nobel Prize) and the likes of Suzuki.

4. And you're right, I'd probably trust Suzuki much more than I'd trust Gore.

PS
5. As for people who support companies with large environmental footprint – I guess that would apply to shareholders who hold BHP – and let’s not even mention the Ok Tedi disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_Environmental_Disaster

Would I still put my money on BHP if I thought their price was gonna go up? Course I would. (unless they did another Ok Tedi) . And concurrently vote in a govt that might ratify Kyoto and /or incentives to reduce their effect on the environment. Maybe BHP will be incentivated to get into cleaner technology and make a fortune selling it as world leaders. (as Aus potentially could be here if we wished … if you believe Garnaut anyways ).

 

[wayneL]

Big Al may have good some points. But I'm not being too hard on someone with a $30,000 p/a power bill.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

PS Wiki => lol

Politicians very actively edit their own wikis

 

[2020hindsight]

PS allegedly John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have all promised to go with CO2 limits becoming law .... "and the market for carbon offsets would probably grow exponentially."

hell why doesn't that ring "opportunity"?!

 

[2020hindsight]

Big Al may have good some points. But I'm not being too hard on someone with a $30,000 p/a power bill.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

PS Wiki => lol

Politicians very actively edit their own wikis

probably two sides (or three maybe?) to every story ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#cite_note-100

In February 2007, critics stated that "a report by the Nashville Electric Service revealed that Mr Gore's mansion in Nashville consumed between 12 and 20 times more electricity than the average family home and that his electricity consumption had risen since the film's release in 2005.

"[91] WKRN-TV reported that the Gore family obtains their power from the Nashville Electric Service's "renewable energy initiative", The Green Power Switch program.[92] The Detroit Free Press also noted that "Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That’s a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES’s Web site."[93]

The Associated Press reported on 13 December 2007 that Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly [...] 'Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher,' said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design."

"Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills"
you could ask I guess , "why only the last 3 months" ?