So much for global warming
- Thread starter Propertunity
- Start date
conversely is the patient who repeatedly presents to the doctors with chest pains.... "I must be having a heart attack, the pains continue". "Your tests are all clear and I have told you repeatedly, lay off the spicy foods".
So off the patient goes to a new doctor for another opinion
To my way of thinking, most of the debate on this topic tends to be on a micro/petty scale rather than big-picture. Couple of points .. (1) There is NO doubt that overall, long term the Earth IS cooling. Earth started out as a molten blob. The continents solidified and moved around. (e.g. Africa was once joined to South America.) The continents are still moving slightly, but in general the crust is now solid, and the centre is still molten , but OVERALL, long term, our spaceship is most definitely cooling. (2) The ONLY external supply of energy for the spaceship is the Sun. You can Google it, but Wiki tells us "there is more solar energy hits the Earth in ONE HOUR than man uses in one year. Doing some simple math that makes the "solar effect" over 8 thousand times more than the "total mankind effect". Now you can argue the smaller details, but 8 thousand times is a fair leverage factor... isn't it ?
To me these are the BIG issues. The rest is "small bikkies" by comparison. The Earth has been going through climatic cycles FOREVER ... but "mankind" is NOT the cause. Sorry. It's a total beatup.
LL
To me these are the BIG issues. The rest is "small bikkies" by comparison. The Earth has been going through climatic cycles FOREVER ... but "mankind" is NOT the cause. Sorry. It's a total beatup.
LL
We have always had 'Science' and now we have "The Science" which are subjective opinions based on Science, but which are presented as scientific and therefore indisputable. What I have noticed in the last couple of months is that very credible people (at least, more credible than ex-Presidents) are now taking the plunge and disputing 'The Science' of global warming, now known as Climate Change. How Convenient.
Are you a sceptic?
Absolutely. I am currently asking an alarmist (on another forum) who lives at St Kilda and is telling us we must move to higher ground, how much actual sea level rise he has observed in his suburb. I finally got him to admit "None YET".
This guy believes that melting ice has already sunk Kiribati by over a metre. He doesn't see the irony in these two conflicting beliefs. He also asked where all the water came from for Noah's flood. You can have him in your camp. I don't want him in mine.
If you are interested I would like some simple answers to some simple questions. May I ask them?
There was an article in The Australian a couple of weeks ago on a report from the scientists who monitor Tidal levels in Australia. There is no increase in sea/tidal levels recorded. I dont Mr Rudd has invited them round for dinner at Kiribilli just yet.
If that was directed at me then go right ahead. However, please don't put me in either of the following camps:
- That the fastest rise in atmospheric CO2 and methane that can be observed in the history of the planet is going to have "no impact".
- That we are all going to be underwater any day now.
That the reality obviously lies within these two extremes is self evident. The degree to which the result veers one way or another by 2100 is unknown and this uncertainty is acknowledged by those who study these things.
The point is the best scientists on the planet as a whole are saying there is a very significant risk of impacting our climate sufficiently to cause negative outcomes for large swathes of the earth's population in this timeframe. Some will pick up on that and say sea levels WILL rise by x metres and others will say nothing is going to happen.
I reckon both are wrong but I know the risk is reduced (on a number of fronts) if we can reduce our (global) greenhouse gas emissions. Not to mention the cost to do so is pretty insignificant in the wider scheme of things... especially for Australia.
we've been measuring levels for a shade over 70 years....? close?
how long is that is the grand cycle of things?
how long is that is the grand cycle of things?
HE. Are you aware that Al Gore recently admitted that CO2 can only have 40% of the effect he claimed?
That he justified his exaggeration as necessary to get the sheep moving, or words to that effect?
How can carbon trading help?
Do you consider CO2 a pollutant?
Do you accept that the "hockey stick" was wrong and that the Medieval Warming Period did indeed exist and that it was a relatively benign period?
Which do you consider the most imminent: AGW or Peak Oil?
Do you believe it is possible to be a sceptical scientist and not be on "big oil's" payroll?
Why is it legitimate for the alarmists to get funding but not the sceptics?
These are some of the questions we ask on a very lively forum but never get answers to. Be as brief as you wish, I don't mind.
That he justified his exaggeration as necessary to get the sheep moving, or words to that effect?
How can carbon trading help?
Do you consider CO2 a pollutant?
Do you accept that the "hockey stick" was wrong and that the Medieval Warming Period did indeed exist and that it was a relatively benign period?
Which do you consider the most imminent: AGW or Peak Oil?
Do you believe it is possible to be a sceptical scientist and not be on "big oil's" payroll?
Why is it legitimate for the alarmists to get funding but not the sceptics?
These are some of the questions we ask on a very lively forum but never get answers to. Be as brief as you wish, I don't mind.
No I wasn't but then I never put a lot of weight into anything he said so I hope I am forgiven for not keeping up with events re: Al Gore.
See above
My (mainly negative) thoughts on the ETS are well documented on this forum. A better solution would be a simple carbon tax. Better than taxing goods and services...
Or stamp duty on property transactions for that matter!
That's an emotive word. My answer is no - I class CO2 in the same way I class beer - you can have too much of a good thing - as hard as that may be to believe!
I don't place much emphasis on any climate models that attempt to guess specific outcomes such as temperature to this level of certainty. More relevant is the risk of the frequency of storms, bushfire, drought and floods and other relevant climate phenomena (desertification etc) rather than simplistic analysis of "global average" temperature, as if that was all important.
Interesting one. The uncertainty around peak oil is to do with the unknown Arab oil reserves so that could well be quite imminent - especially when you look back at the oil price over the last few years... However Peak Oil can be dealt with through a natural price mechanism to substitute other behaviours and sources of energy. Climate change is more difficult as there is no natural price mechanism and we are messing we something we don't really understand all that well - the risk is in that point.
We do know CO2 concentrations are increasing steadily...
Yes
I see no disparity in funding between the two. I happen to know of a number of very large companies providing very significant funding to the latter camps... and who have coincidentally been very successful politically in advancing their cause. The present mess within the Liberal party is testament to that.
No problem.
great link!
still - i was talking about sea levels - and my argument wasn't directed at anyone, Sunfish mentioned that dude wanting to relocate to higher ground, based on hysterical data that dates back a shade over 70 years.... and so on and so forth.
G'day Joe.
I'm a bit of a sceptic too.
I notice your in Zurich, Switzerland. Your profile says your an investment banker. Cool. Don't happen to work for Goldman Sachs do you? I'll bet you and a million other investment bankers are looking forward to carbon trading, including Malcolm Turnbull. Imagine all the new ways that can be invented to get money out of real people producing real stuff. It will be like pigs at a feed trough.
Picture of 3 investment bankers after carbon trading comes in,....
See ya's.
Last edited:
Thanks for your contributions to these energy/global warming threads HE.
Looking at the chart on that link, it looks to me as though CO2 levels are high when temps rise, and drop in the ice ages. The peaks are the interglacials, the troughs, the ice ages. We are currently in an interglacial and have been for ten thousand years.
Graph of CO2 (green), reconstructed temperature (blue) and dust (red) from the Vostok ice core for the past 420,000 years
But what would a farmer know..?? Obviously if CO2 levels are rising rapidly now, it's going to mean something bad could happen in the future?
Tell me all though. If you wanted to increase Australia's carbon emissions as fast as possible, how would you do it?
You would fill the place up with people from developing nations as quickly as possible. That's what we are doing now.
What about this then? If you wanted to increase global emissions as quickly as possible, how would you do it?
You would use an agreement like whats being proposed in Copenhagan to take money from developed nations, and give it to developing nations, so they can quickly become developed nations and produce as much carbon as we all do. Yes, as if this will work..??
See ya's.
Looking at the chart on that link, it looks to me as though CO2 levels are high when temps rise, and drop in the ice ages. The peaks are the interglacials, the troughs, the ice ages. We are currently in an interglacial and have been for ten thousand years.
Graph of CO2 (green), reconstructed temperature (blue) and dust (red) from the Vostok ice core for the past 420,000 years
But what would a farmer know..?? Obviously if CO2 levels are rising rapidly now, it's going to mean something bad could happen in the future?
Tell me all though. If you wanted to increase Australia's carbon emissions as fast as possible, how would you do it?
You would fill the place up with people from developing nations as quickly as possible. That's what we are doing now.
What about this then? If you wanted to increase global emissions as quickly as possible, how would you do it?
You would use an agreement like whats being proposed in Copenhagan to take money from developed nations, and give it to developing nations, so they can quickly become developed nations and produce as much carbon as we all do. Yes, as if this will work..??
See ya's.
Misleading graphs
These graphs (used by Big Al ) are correct but the TIME SCALE makes them misleading. ( You will note they span hundreds of thousands of years.) When you analyse them more closely apparently there is in fact an 800 year lag between the two graphs. I forget which graph leads....but the "problem" won't be here for 800 years ...if there is one !!
LL
These graphs (used by Big Al ) are correct but the TIME SCALE makes them misleading. ( You will note they span hundreds of thousands of years.) When you analyse them more closely apparently there is in fact an 800 year lag between the two graphs. I forget which graph leads....but the "problem" won't be here for 800 years ...if there is one !!
LL
Hands up all who think that politicians are visionaries.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/australias-csiro-tries-to-squelch-a-dissenting-view-on-carbon-trading/
and read this opinion as well. I couldn't agree more
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/devilish-ets-a-scheme-nobody-should-vote-for/story-e6frfig6-1225802727658
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/australias-csiro-tries-to-squelch-a-dissenting-view-on-carbon-trading/
and read this opinion as well. I couldn't agree more
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/devilish-ets-a-scheme-nobody-should-vote-for/story-e6frfig6-1225802727658
Last edited:
Hi TC
There are a couple of things to note about the scales of the graphs in question. The long term CO2 graph typically peaks at about 290-300ppmv. Going back to this graph we are now around 390ppmv and rising fast, having risen more than 70ppmv in only 50 years from a long term historically high point.
So the (habitable) earth has never:
- Seen these CO2 levels before
- Dealt with as rapid an increase in CO2 levels as is now occuring
Given our still limited understanding of the climate (as frequently pointed out by those who don't like the modelling for one reason or another) can we conclude that this represents a significant risk over the next 100 years?
I think it's a big enough risk to warrant doing something about. It may be that the Earth can handle 1000ppmv comfortably and we can go on our merry way (although I seriously doubt it...). However, two points are still worth noting:
1) Done properly, the cost of reducing emissions isn't all that great if we just change what we tax. If the effort that currently went into "tax minimisation" could be diverted into CO2 emissions, just imagine the results! And absolutely an ETS will drive all the wrong behaviours...
2)There are added long term benefits for our long term energy, water and environmental security in tackling these problems ASAP. You are well aware of the link between oil and food prices - I don't want to live in a world where a permanent oil shock drives up the cost of food to revolutionary / military levels. We need to do what we can to develop alternatives and a cost on carbon is a key component of establishing that market.
By the way, getting away from the hysterics of Australian journalists and the folly of the ETS currently on the table, you may be interested in this joint statement from the UK MetOffice, the Royal Society and their Natural Environment Research Council. These organisations are very conservative and not known for making outlandish public claims on any subject. Strikes me as a comprehensive summary of the current state of the science...
There are a couple of things to note about the scales of the graphs in question. The long term CO2 graph typically peaks at about 290-300ppmv. Going back to this graph we are now around 390ppmv and rising fast, having risen more than 70ppmv in only 50 years from a long term historically high point.
So the (habitable) earth has never:
- Seen these CO2 levels before
- Dealt with as rapid an increase in CO2 levels as is now occuring
Given our still limited understanding of the climate (as frequently pointed out by those who don't like the modelling for one reason or another) can we conclude that this represents a significant risk over the next 100 years?
I think it's a big enough risk to warrant doing something about. It may be that the Earth can handle 1000ppmv comfortably and we can go on our merry way (although I seriously doubt it...). However, two points are still worth noting:
1) Done properly, the cost of reducing emissions isn't all that great if we just change what we tax. If the effort that currently went into "tax minimisation" could be diverted into CO2 emissions, just imagine the results!
And absolutely an ETS will drive all the wrong behaviours...2)There are added long term benefits for our long term energy, water and environmental security in tackling these problems ASAP. You are well aware of the link between oil and food prices - I don't want to live in a world where a permanent oil shock drives up the cost of food to revolutionary / military levels. We need to do what we can to develop alternatives and a cost on carbon is a key component of establishing that market.
By the way, getting away from the hysterics of Australian journalists and the folly of the ETS currently on the table, you may be interested in this joint statement from the UK MetOffice, the Royal Society and their Natural Environment Research Council. These organisations are very conservative and not known for making outlandish public claims on any subject. Strikes me as a comprehensive summary of the current state of the science...
Last edited:
Similar threads
