One-Eyed Richmond Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: tiga on November 02, 2009, 02:39:39 PM
-
Well as it is the "Off Season" I thought I would start off some controversial discussion topics to keep things interesting. I'm sure we will have polarising opinions on this first one, Global Warming and Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme.
Here is my opinion to start us off...
Does Global Warming exist?? Sure it does..Always has, but so has Global cooling and both will continue to happen until the world stops turning. Everyone needs a cause, and if there is money to be made from it...even better! Global warming and Carbon emissions schemes are driven by Politicians, political activists and economists, not scienctists. Ask some of the worlds leading climatologists about global warming and they will tell you that there is no evidence to prove that global warming is on an exponential curve, rather its more like a wave. All the findings on global warming are being based on 20 years of temperature records. How can this be accurate considering the planet is over 4.5 billion years old. The professor (Ross Garnaut) who is advising Kevin Rudd on global warming and Carbon emissions trading is not a Professor of science, but a professor of Economics. Doesn't that say something??
Carbon emissions trading is being married to the Global warming cause because it will be a way that the Govenment can tax us and we can feel good about paying it because we believe we are doing something good for the world's climate. In reality it will drive up prices on everything we know and the economic damage this scheme will cause to businesses throughout out country will be severe. Anything that generates carbon will be taxed and as carbon is the primary soruce of life on this planet, nothing will be exempt from it. Billions of dollars will leave this country destined to other countries throughout the world and all we will receive is a thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to your next cheque!!! F-THAT!!
Here is a very interesting talk on the topic given by Lord Monckton. Very thought provoking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Look forward to hearing opinions from anyone interested. BTW, lets keep discussions on topic and no personal insults. :thumbsup
-
You just have to laugh at anyone who says that climate change doesn't exist, but some people do make that statement. As tiga says, the earths climate is constantly changing. It is believed that the earth started as a frozen mass, since then the poles have been tropical rainforests and we have been through ice ages. (It's like people that say they don't believe in UFOs - people who say that don't know or don't think about what a UFO actually is.)
The real questions are, has the activities of man hastened the change in climate and can we actually make any difference by changing these activities?
Does the science actually stand up to the claims being made by either side of the debate? To be honest, I haven't looked into it deeply enough, but what I do know is the debate is being hijacked by people who have a barrow to push and the bottom line is always the mighty dollar. One of my favorite quotes is from the recently departed Michael Chrichton,
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
This may seem cynical, but he is right, science is not a democracy, it is the search for truth. It is important to make an informed decision based on the available data rather than just 'every one says so, so it must be true'.
When certain entities have a vested interest and enough money, they can influence science through sheer weight of numbers convincing the masses of something, that will ultimately lead to the filling of the coffers of these entities.
It has already happened with modern dietary advice, pushed by large food manufacturing companies and pharmaceutical companies creating illnesses where there are none, just sell their products. The end result is a population becoming sicker and more dependent on drugs.
Sorry, taking this elsewhere, just trying to make a point.
Personally, when an specific interest group, say the coal industry, or on the other hand the nuclear power industry, makes claims about climate change I basically ignore them because they have so much at stake in making their claims. I know it doesn't mean they are wrong, but to me they loose a bit of credence because of possible conflict of interest.
Then we get governments, hijacking science to promote their own agendas. Of particular relevance is the claims made today by a CSIRO scientist that he has been censored from publishing a paper that contradicts the government policy on climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2730523.htm
Also today we the hear the british goverment doing the same thing, albeit a different subject.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2730523.htm (wrong link)
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2730179.htm
This is a prime example of the government trying to control the science to fit their policy, rather than forming policy based on the science.
But, back to climate change itself. I have heard people quote figures saying that the temperatures have not actually changed that much in the last 50 years or so. I have even heard one person claim temperatures, world wide, have actually dropped. (makes me think of the claims a few years ago that global warming would lead to an ice age)
This same person claimed that polar ice caps ( he may have specifically mentioned Northern) have increased in the last few years. Yet we have some pacific atolls where they claim that rising sea levels are destroying their food cultivation areas.
And of course we then have the vast majority saying (or just most influential) that temperatures are rising and will continue to do so, but remember science is not a democracy.
While I wont say you are wrong tiga, but by using the economic damage reasoning, you are clouding the issue at hand. Yes it is scary to have a professor of science advising the government on climate change, but to try to counter the government's policy with economic reasoning is no better. You need to counter their science with solid science yourself, or highlight the fact that their science is not solid. Once we make our decisions solely based on economics, then we are well and truly stuffed, whatever the decision is.
Sadly, i don't think any one really knows for sure the answers to the questions, are we speeding up climate change and can we actually slow it down?
With all the time, money and resources each side is putting into the debate we would be all much better off if it was put into working out how we can adapt to a changing climate, because the climate is changing, always has changed and most probably always will. Sadly this will not happen, because the driving force behind most of humans decision making is money.
Just as a footnote, besides the economical argument, would it be such a bad thing if the world was to reduce the amount of pollutants we spew into the atmosphere? I'm sure that someone, somewhere could create an economic model saying the saving in health costs or something similar would outweigh the economic damage . Actually I think there may be claims about how the changing weather and more frequent and intense storms, floods, droughts, pestilence etc etc will be devastating to economies. So round and round it goes.
Just my take on things :)
-
I think it's wrong to claim that climate change is being driven by purely by economists and politicians and not by scientists. Scientists do the actual work.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Just as an aside, this GW quote made me laugh btw ...
In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said "that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. "
:wallywink
I don't like linking to wikipedia as it's not always sourced and accurate but here goes anyway as a starting background on the topic ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
Politicians are usually the last ones to take up new issues and only do so if there's votes in it including those who are in denial that there's been any global warming at all and think it's all one big left-wing conspiracy. I still remember Andrew Bolt a few years ago using a single 15 degree day in Warrnambool in mid-February as evidence global temperatures weren't rising :stupid. No different to loopy lefties saying we should all be building an ark lol. The political "debate" is a hinderance rather than a help to the issue (see Barnaby Joyce). Listening to our pollies argue about this is a cure for insomnia :sleep.
As for emissions trading I agree price of fossil fuel dependent products will rise but that's the point as far as I'm aware. Coal and gas is cheap especially in Australia. Rightly or wrongly an ETS is an attempt to make non-fossil fuel energy sources financially competitive over time via market forces (making fossil fuels more expensive). Hoping businesses and consumers more and more switch at least in part to these alternative energy sources over time (you still need a base load = fossil fuel or nuclear power plant). Whether an ETS is the most realistic and effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions long-term to a sustainable level is something I can't answer. All I know is even without an ETS, utility bills go up now whether I use more or less thanks to those ever increasing service charges. Now that's a rip off :scream.
-
I think it's wrong to claim that climate change is being driven by purely by economists and politicians and not by scientists. Scientists do the actual work
.
Mt I gather you mean the climate change debate here, not climate change itself?
In any scientific debate it always the scientists who do the work, but you need to know who pays the scientists to do the work and how much they influence what work is done. Due to a large amount of research i have done on another subject I have become very cynical about the impartiality of much of the scientific community, particulary those that work in a filed that can generate lots of money, such as health. perhaps I am too cynical. There will be a percentage who can give a truly unbiased view, but the problem is working out who they are.
Those nasa links are interesting, one pointing out the fall in global temperatures which is probably what the bloke i mentioned was alluding to. Considering most of NASAs work on this would have been conducted under the Bush administration, who is a confirmed global warming sceptic (wouldnt have anything to do with his family wealth being heavily from oil??) I would have to admit that there probably has not being too much political influence, from the presidency at least.
The first link though starts off with "According to the vast majority of climate scientists, the planet is heating up", because of Michael Chichton I worry about these statements :).
I do think that it is very hard for any one to definitely say whether the climate change is or is not man induced, or man influenced. Most of the assumptions are made on an association between an increase in man made emissions and rise in global temperatures. It is only an association. It is near on impossible to prove, or disprove a causal relationship. The only way to prove either way would be to reduce emissions over the next 50-100 years and see if the rate of warming decreases, or even stabilises. Even then it would not be definitive, because climate change has been occurring at various rates on this planet before humans infested it and the time frame we are talking about is miniscule in terms of the larger picture of the changing climate on the planet.
You are right about politicians and votes, but politicians can also be heavily influenced by lobby groups. The most powerful lobby groups are not the vocal great unwashed we see on TV, but those with money, power and influence who work behind closed doors.
The Anderw Bolte you mention, is he the ultra conservative lunatic that writes, or used to, for the herald scum? :blah :chuck
Yeah, for sure, the political (and economical) debate is a hindrance, as is those that want to hijack it for their own means. Seen the adds on TV by some vege fruitcake mob telling us we can save the world by eating less meat? They must think it great that the massive herds of bison have been all but eradicated from the american plains, as well as the vast reduction of herbavores from the african plains :whistle.
Its a debate clouded in misinformation and put forward in such a way that the most of us have really no hope of getting a grasp of the truth. That, I am sure, is deliberate.
-
The problem in modern science though is the complexity of problems needed to be solved means the accepted theory comes well before it is proved experimentally (observed in nature). Take the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs ("God") particle that's been in the papers recently. The theory behind it has been accepted (a concensus?) for decades yet this "God" particle has never been observed in experiments. The theory is accepted because it explains most (but not all) other phenomena we observe in the subatomic world. If scientists waited for absolute experimental proof on every theory then hardly anything would get done. The theory often now drives what experiment is done next rather than classical science where scientists such as Newton came up with theories to describe want they had already observed in nature. Even Einstein's theory of relativity was just that a theory before experiments (some decades later) supported it. Constant scientific peer review is what decides if a theory has creedance or not and yes not everyone comes to a consensus. Go to any science conference and the discussion can get quite heated at times when bulls with contradictory and competing opinions butt heads.
Also often these theories contain equations that when dealing with real-world problems are non-linear and very difficult if not nigh on impossible to solve analytically (exactly). You need to resort to numerical stochastic (random statistical sampling) methods to extract answers. Even then these methods may need some assumptions or external parameters to help pull out a meaningful result. It's all very well for those from non-scientific backgrounds to point the finger and say these stochastic methods/models aren't foolproof especially when making predictions and so we should dismiss what results they produce, but these methods are used in many fields both scientific and non-scientific (eg: finance) and we as a society rely on them more than the general public realise.
I know that there are scientists that are funded by organisations with a agenda to push and self-interests to protect and I have no problem with people being skeptical but don't label all scientists in the same boat. I would say most of the debate that is "clouded in misinformation and put forward in such a way that the most of us have really no hope of getting a grasp of the truth" is coming from the politicians and their partisan supporters who have no scientific education or qualifications.
ps. yes Bolt still writes for the Herald-Sun. The old trick of trying to be deliberately controversial to attract attention to him and the newspaper from political nuts on both the left and right.
-
It's an intriguing world, that of science. Many people of a scientific background say they only believe what you can prove, something I relate to. The thing is, as you allude to, much of what we accept as fact, is in in fact :) just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. A theory that fits what we can see, makes some sort of sense and as far as i know no one has discovered anything that questions the theory, so it holds tight. Somethings in the scientific world it is impossible to prove a negative, sometimes impossible to prove a positive. I quote Chricthon again as I think this puts it into perspective.
"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid — and merits universal acceptance — only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't."
I know that there are scientists that are funded by organisations with a agenda to push and self-interests to protect and I have no problem with people being skeptical but don't label all scientists in the same boat.
Yeah, as i said, perhaps I'm too cynical. A lot of what I have looked into has been in the field of health, in which the pharmaceuticals have an unhealthy influence in the studies conducted. Something that is starting to be acknowledged by those in the field itself.
I did say though,
I have become very cynical about the impartiality of much of the scientific community, particulary those that work in a filed that can generate lots of money, such as health.
(yeah I can see the spelling errors)
So, I don't put them all in the same boat, even if I have given that impression. What I do though, is like to find out where the money comes from when I take notice of research. In many fields of science, there is not a huge amount of money to be made, so these fields have not been corrupted by corporations and their dollars. Even in the fields that have, there are many who swim against the tide and I have nothing but the utmost of admiration for these people. Often the stance they take is to the detriment of their career. Galileo was probably one of the earliest examples of this, although money wasn't a factor there.
I would say most of the debate that is "clouded in misinformation and put forward in such a way that the most of us have really no hope of getting a grasp of the truth" is coming from the politicians and their partisan supporters who have no scientific education or qualifications.
Spot on.
Can I ask MT what line of work you are/were in?
-
MT, how could you seriously bring Wiki into this discussion. "Well we were driving one day in Billy Bob's pickup and the sun came out and it got hotter so I said to Billy Bob...You know what that feelin' is?? It's Global Warming Muchachos!! I think I'll document it in that fandangled Wiki thing on the internet super highway cause I'm the smartest Man around Billy Bob!! Ain't that the truth!!" ;D
Did either of you view the Lord Monckton youtube Link?? Certainly exposes Al Gore as the Dim witted twit that he is. Al Gore's Nahn Lahs...That cracks me up! :rollin I have the PDF link if either of you are interested as it shows all the slides from the presentation.
-
Did either of you view the Lord Monckton youtube Link??
...and your point being??
-
Did either of you view the Lord Monckton youtube Link?? Certainly exposes Al Gore as the Dim witted twit that he is. Al Gore's Nahn Lahs...That cracks me up! :rollin I have the PDF link if either of you are interested as it shows all the slides from the presentation.
To be honest I got to about 20 minutes of him waffling on about how the banning of DDT and Haiti's domestic turmoil and poverty is the fault of those who similarly support climate change and turned off. He's an ultra-conservative journalist and wannabee pollie pushing his own political barrow at a political conservative forum. Hardly the bastion of serious scientific research :wallywink. He has no formal scientific education. The paper he submitted to the American Physical Society was found to have over 100 errors and misinformed statements in it.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4600
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
He reminds me of loopies who would send huge essay long emails out of nowhere claiming to "prove" everything from quantum mechanics, Einstein's theory of relativity, etc were wrong lol. Just because someone can mish-mash known big scientific words together doesn't make them knowledgable about an issue. Gore goes to the other extreme. Both wouldn't be politicians of opposite persuasions would they :P.
ps. Speaking of the "truth", didn't Obiwan Kenobi tell us the truths we cling to depend on our point of view ;D.
-
Yeah, as i said, perhaps I'm too cynical. A lot of what I have looked into has been in the field of health, in which the pharmaceuticals have an unhealthy influence in the studies conducted. Something that is starting to be acknowledged by those in the field itself.
That's true the pressure from the commercial side of research can muddy the waters. Intellectual property is highly protected rather than shared for benefit of science. It's usually easier to find funding for topical research with potentially commercial applications too. Fundamental scientific research can take years/decades to see any "real world" purpose. The laser for instance was discovered in the early 1960s IIRC but it took to the 80s before it was used in medicine say.
Can I ask MT what line of work you are/were in?
Check you PMs :shh
-
Did either of you view the Lord Monckton youtube Link??
...and your point being??
No point al, just wanted to know what you thought of it. I found it quite humorous, and whilst some of his comments are dubious at best, I did find it entertaining when he took Al Gore's Fractured fairytale on global warming to task.
MT, as far as I could tell, Monckton never stated that he was a man of science from what I saw. He was just reporting what he felt were the facts. Honestly though, you can't refute Professor Richard Lindzen's pedigree when it comes to climatology. He is one person worth listening to. I found his recent interview on 2GB regarding Global warming and Global Emissions Trading very insightful.
-
As for emissions trading I agree price of fossil fuel dependent products will rise but that's the point as far as I'm aware. Coal and gas is cheap especially in Australia. Rightly or wrongly an ETS is an attempt to make non-fossil fuel energy sources financially competitive over time via market forces (making fossil fuels more expensive). Hoping businesses and consumers more and more switch at least in part to these alternative energy sources over time (you still need a base load = fossil fuel or nuclear power plant). Whether an ETS is the most realistic and effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions long-term to a sustainable level is something I can't answer. All I know is even without an ETS, utility bills go up now whether I use more or less thanks to those ever increasing service charges. Now that's a rip off :scream.
Mt, its the flow on effect from the ETS that bothers me. Sure it may start with the use of fossil fuels but as we are so dependent on them at present, from the Coal burning Power company, to the farmer who uses a tractor to plow his crop, it will adversely affect every individual in this country. There are no real geniune large scale alternatives in this country. Nuclear power of which I am a supporter of, should be an option but the scare mongering greenie left have well and truly jammed a doorstop on that. I visited ANSTO recently and got a much better perspective on nuclear energy.
Australia will be affected adversly by an ETS more than many other countries in the developed world and the big question is...How immediate is the need for an ETS??? Even if I did believe in the rhetoric of the "global warming crisis", I feel the world needs to focus its energy on more immediate needs, world poverty and famine. But I guess, there's no easy to make a quick buck on that is there....
I was amazed to find out that on the money I earn, (Which is not large by any means) I am in the top 5% of wage earners in the world and anyone else here who earns the Australian average wage would also be in the top 5%.
-
MT, as far as I could tell, Monckton never stated that he was a man of science from what I saw
He referred to himself as a climatologist, "us climatologists" is what he said. I think he may have later said that he has no scientific qualifications. He also sure he bagged people from the other side of the debate for sprouting off when they don't have any scientific background
What I thought of it?
It was right wing conservative playing up the fears of other right wing conservatives. He clouded the issue with constant bagging of the lefties and how they want to destroy this and destroy that. I saw very little science and have tried to have a look at the pdf but my system has trouble with it for some reason. The pages that did load were not what i would call scientific data, let alone proof.
I watched a bit more than MT but it had to force myself. He did refer to data at one stage,but as the clip did not show the slides he was viewing it was hard to follow. IT seem as if the dat he referred to was only a few years. When talking about whether patterns you need to look at a much larger time frame of data to make any conclusions. At this point I got impression he was trying to say that climate change dindnt exist. I found it hard to take him seriously after his DDT rant and even harder after that.
After one hour i heard nothing to convince me that the earth is not warming or that mans activities do not play a part. I'm not saying that is what i believe, just that he didn't put anything forward except political and economical diatribe in an attempt to discredit people who do believe that.
I did have to laugh though when he said we should work towards making all the poor people rich. Rich and poor are relative. if no one is poor, then no one can be rich. Make every one rich!!! An ultra conservative sprouting a socialist pipe dream.
:ROTFL
-
Actually found this by accident.
Kilimanjaro's ice caps shrinking
November 04, 2009
WASHINGTON: The snows capping Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, are shrinking rapidly and could vanish in 20 years, most likely due to global warming, a study says.
The ice sheet that capped Kilimanjaro in 1912 was 85 per cent smaller by 2007, and since 2000, the ice sheet had shrunk by 26 per cent, paleoclimatologists said.
The findings point to the rise in global temperatures as the most likely cause of the ice loss. Changes in cloudiness and precipitation may have also played a role, especially in recent decades.
"This is the first time researchers have calculated the volume of ice lost from the mountain's ice fields," Lonnie Thompson, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University, says in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"If you look at the percentage of volume lost since 2000 versus the percentage of area lost as the ice fields shrink, the numbers are very close."
While the yearly loss of the mountain glaciers is most apparent from the retreat of their margins, Professor Thompson said an equally troubling effect was the thinning of the ice fields from the surface.
The summits of the northern and southern ice fields atop Kilimanjaro have thinned by 1.9m and 5.1m, respectively. The smaller Furtwangler Glacier, which was melting and water-saturated in 2000 when it was drilled, has thinned up to 50 per cent between 2000 and this year.
"It has lost half of its thickness," Professor Thompson says.
"In the future, there will be a year when Furtwangler is present and by the next year, it will have disappeared. The whole thing will be gone."
The scientists found no evidence of sustained melting anywhere else in the ice-core samples they extracted, which date back 11,700 years.
Their findings show that current climate conditions over Mount Kilimanjaro are unique over the past 11 millennia.
The report represents a serious blow to the climate-change sceptics. It not only supplies new evidence that global warming is contributing to the melting but it is co-authored by Doug Hardy, a climatologist previously quoted by sceptics as supporting their case.
If drier conditions were to blame, it would be reasonable to expect a 300-year drought that afflicted Kilimanjaro 4700 years ago to have resulted in significant ice loss. But cross-sections of ice examined by Dr Hardy show that the only sustained melting in the past 11,700 years began about 40 years ago.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26300973-2703,00.html
-
All the talk about Global warning is just a spin so the goverments of the world can suck money from everyone so they can live up life & everyone is paying for it
its all rubbish
-
All the talk about Global warning is just a spin so the goverments of the world can suck money from everyone so they can live up life & everyone is paying for it
its all rubbish
Finally someone has entered the discussion who can see this whole crap for what it really is. :clapping
I couldn't agree more Monk! :thumbsup
did anyone see Al Gore's recent comment that we have to all become vegetarian because livestock consume too much water and expend too much methane into the atmosphere. What a putz!! :wallywink
It has also been revealed that due to methane emissions generated by cows, under an ETS, cattle would be taxed at an average of $75 per head. Farmers would not be able to sustain that. An ETS will rape primary industry till the point we will have no industry at all.
Good one Rudd you Ego manic. :chuck You are going to hell in a handbasket and taking us all along for the ride! But at least everyone at Copenhagen will think you are a star while you are systematically stuffing up your own country's livelihood!! But that doesn't affect them at all does it...
-
did anyone see Al Gore's recent comment that we have to all become vegetarian because livestock consume too much water and expend too much methane into the atmosphere. What a putz!! :wallywink
Yeah, for sure, the political (and economical) debate is a hindrance, as is those that want to hijack it for their own means. Seen the adds on TV by some vege fruitcake mob telling us we can save the world by eating less meat? They must think it great that the massive herds of bison have been all but eradicated from the american plains, as well as the vast reduction of herbavores from the african plains :whistle.
::)
It has also been revealed that due to methane emissions generated by cows, under an ETS, cattle would be taxed at an average of $75 per head. Farmers would not be able to sustain that. An ETS will rape primary industry till the point we will have no industry at all.
A while back, i think it was the CSIRO published a report saying that grain fed cattle produce less methane than grass fed cattle, so now the grain industry and feedlot industry use this to say that grain fed cattle are better for the environment. What they don't take into account is the emissions involved in preparing, planting, harvesting, processing and transporting the grains before they are even fed to the cattle.
tiga i get the impression that you are more concerned with either political idealism or political tribalism than the scientific truth.
As i have stated, I am not convinced by either side in the debate as i dont think the evidence can be produced. Happy to be proven wrong if someone can produce evidence to back up either side of the debate.
-
No need to roll your eyes al, I did read your reply, I was discussing comments made by your namesake, Al Gore. Maybe you too have more in common than you think.
You can throw all the labels you want at my comments and pidgeon hole me if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I am just being realistic in stating that there is a whole lot more to this than just the global warming issue. If I were to categorise you, I would call you a fence sitter but I guess its a hell of a lot easier removing the odd splinter from your bottom and dissecting other peoples comments when you do not have to defend any real opinion upon which you can be challenged. I guess you are just waiting for Geez to turn up so you can stick your finger in his palm. But if that's the way you roll then so be it.
al, I'm not prepared to debate this issue anymore with you until you pick your comfy little banana lounge up off the median strip you are on and choose which side of the road you want to sit on. When debating, there is a for and an against, there is no non-committal until I get all the facts position...oh yes wait.. there is...Its called the audience.
Maybe one day you will come to some realisation of what an ETS will do to this country, but by then it will probably be all too late.
-
The reason I sit on the fence on this issue, is i have not seen any evidence that enables me to make an informed decision, one way or the other.
What I wont do is follow the lead of others, just because they have the same ideology as me. Even one of the slides i was able to view from your mates presentation mentioned about the folly of blind faith.
On this subject my opinion is this. There is no evidence that holds up to scrutiny to make an informed decision, either way. I am happy to have this opinion scrutionised, challenged, exploded or proven wrong or right. To make decisions and then defend them to the death without any evidence as a foundation... well I'll leave that to those you seem to be accusing me of being with your comments about JC.
On the ETS. I believe it is rushed and based on political mileage rather than any sound science. I think most people who are not in the "I believe that global warming will kill us all and nothing you say will change my mind" or "Im a labour supporter and nothing they do will ever be wrong" camps would recognise that. I thought this debate was on climate change and whether it is influenced by humans, a scientific subject best discussed with facts rather than ruled by emotion.
-
:sleep
al, the purpose of this thread was to create a debate. Anything we say here will count for nothing anyway, so there is really no need for you to be so cautious. step out on a limb and have a crack at being the king of spin. I guess the thrill is gone now anyway.
So why don't you choose a topic you feel strongly about, I will argue for the negative whether I agree or not and let the games begin. ;D
You probably haven't been of this forum long enough to know that I don't take things too seriously. For me it was just a bit of fun to pass the time.
-
OK, I get the point. Sorry to put you to sleep - hope you weren't doing anything important. I'll see if i can can up with something I wont get so anal about :D
-
As for emissions trading I agree price of fossil fuel dependent products will rise but that's the point as far as I'm aware. Coal and gas is cheap especially in Australia. Rightly or wrongly an ETS is an attempt to make non-fossil fuel energy sources financially competitive over time via market forces (making fossil fuels more expensive). Hoping businesses and consumers more and more switch at least in part to these alternative energy sources over time (you still need a base load = fossil fuel or nuclear power plant). Whether an ETS is the most realistic and effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions long-term to a sustainable level is something I can't answer. All I know is even without an ETS, utility bills go up now whether I use more or less thanks to those ever increasing service charges. Now that's a rip off :scream.
Mt, its the flow on effect from the ETS that bothers me. Sure it may start with the use of fossil fuels but as we are so dependent on them at present, from the Coal burning Power company, to the farmer who uses a tractor to plow his crop, it will adversely affect every individual in this country. There are no real geniune large scale alternatives in this country. Nuclear power of which I am a supporter of, should be an option but the scare mongering greenie left have well and truly jammed a doorstop on that. I visited ANSTO recently and got a much better perspective on nuclear energy.
Australia will be affected adversly by an ETS more than many other countries in the developed world and the big question is...How immediate is the need for an ETS??? Even if I did believe in the rhetoric of the "global warming crisis", I feel the world needs to focus its energy on more immediate needs, world poverty and famine. But I guess, there's no easy to make a quick buck on that is there....
World poverty and famine is by far a more complex and difficult problem though tiga. If not the most difficult of all :help. The study of climate via satelites, weather instruments, etc on one hand is by and large globally accepted and trivial in comparision. On the other hand there is no common political system worldwide (quite the opposite) and politically we still function at a national(ist) level despite the trend towards increased globalisation. The UN has no real power as it's the norm not to interfere with domestic political issues of any country no matter how much of a basketcase a nation has become (eg: Zimbabwe). What was Sir Humphrey Appleby's name for these countries - T.P.L.A.C. lol. Most impoverished nations lack the political stability (civil war and strife), resources and climate for development, and are usually too riddled with corruption to give a stuff about reducing poverty and raise the standard of living of the general population. Most wars these days are internal civil wars rather than nation vs nation. I'd presume economists see globalisation as the long-term solution but that may take centuries long after we've gone. That's another debate topic altogether.
As far as nuclear energy goes there is the greenie-far left opposition but I reckon the main opposition comes from the NIMBY factor and people thinking they'll have the next Chernobyl or 3-mile island built next door to their place or local town (there's also the factor of how to manage the waste products which presumably would be buried and sealed deep underground). The idea of say France having the majority of its electricity needs coming from state of the art well-managed nuclear power plants is a foreign concept. Victoria is having a desalinisation plant built down in Wonthaggi and the locals have opposed it being built down there from day one. Likewise the Goulburn water pipeline. No one wants the Government using its powers to dictate the use of a local resource no matter how much it may benefit the population as a whole. We all loved 'The Castle' because the little guy got to shove it up the corporations and Government. Coincidently if Nuclear power did get the go ahead in Australia, locations that have a desalinisation plant would also become favoured locations for a Nuclear power plant as the electricity needed to run the desalinsation plant would come from the Nuclear plant and the Nuclear plant could use the water from the desalinisation plant to cool the towers. As far as alternative energy sources, the CSIRO site seems to be focussed on a transition from fossil fuels to hybrids and possibly Hydrogen fuel cells as well as more efficient and "cleaner" coal use and low environmental impact CO2 disposal.
http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change-Mitigation.html
As for the consequences of an ETS, I'd gather it'll be no different to any other significant change to the way the economy is run. Australia has undergone significant change from the early 80s onwards (a move to an open more flexible free-trade economy) and that had adverse effects in the short-term (the 1990-91 recession hit Australia harder than most as old formerly protected sectors shrunk or even died off). However it is that open flexible economy that has seen us through the current GFC better than most. Progress has its casualities sadly (horse and cart and steam engines say hello) but new industries and technologies develop as people and companies adapt to the new economic environment to more than compensate the losses usually. To do nothing and ignore and resist the evidence for change usually has far worse consequences. Ask Ford and GM who didn't move with the times and ignored the fact consumers were moving away from the traditional big petrol gusslers. The West is slowly trying to ween itself off its high dependence on fossil fuels long-term and not just because of Greenhouse gas emissions. The current proposed form of the ETS needs refining and bipartisan support (they won't be deciding if agriculture will be included until 2013 AFAIK and if we copy the USA like most things it probably won't be) but it'll eventually get through in some form. Even John Howard has come out claiming his ETS proposal was no different to what Rudd is proposing implying Rudd has just copied him. I agree with you tiga that there needs to be a practical balance when it comes to the ETS otherwise it'll fail but I guess that's where the debate is now rather than debating old ground over the validity of global warming/climate change itself.
I was amazed to find out that on the money I earn, (Which is not large by any means) I am in the top 5% of wage earners in the world and anyone else here who earns the Australian average wage would also be in the top 5%.
tiga it's your shout then :cheers ;D
-
Sounds like an ETS deal is close. Agriculture to be excluded permanently.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/finance-minister-lindsay-tanner-confirms-agriculture-out-of-ets/story-e6frf7l6-1225797830651
-
Probably belongs in a different thread but what were the Libs thinking making Tony Abbott their leader :help and by just only one vote. They've most likely stalled the ETS for the time being if no one crosses the floor in the Senate but talk about committing political suicide!
-
I'd put money on a double dissolution (disillusion ;D) election after hearing his speech this morning. Lost count how many times he said he was not afraid to go to an election over this.
-
I'd put money on a double dissolution (disillusion ;D) election after hearing his speech this morning. Lost count how many times he said he was not afraid to go to an election over this.
If Abbott lasts until the next election lol. He can be a loose cannon :help. Yep a double dissolution is looking more and more on the cards.
-
Once again no room for free thinkers in Australian politics. I'm not a conservative but it was clear that Turnbull had studied the subject well and come to his own conclusions which he knew would contradict many of his followrs but was nonetheless in the country's interests. It is also clear that conservatism in Australia has become much less a political philosophy as it is a state of mind. How does one explain an entire group of people, most of whom were in politics well before climate change was an issue, fall in unison to an increasingly untenable position on climate change. Turnbull was quite courageous I thought trying to progress the Liberal party back into relevance. Cameron has done the same in the UK and the sceptics haven't managed to shout him down. Now we have the likes of Abbott and Fielding, about as far right wing christian conservatives as you get in this country, running the opposition and it really is worse for the country in the long run, we will either have a stagnant legislative process or a double dissolution which Rudd will win with a majority in both houses and be free to do whatever he wants without scrutiny. Howard really buggered the Libs.
-
It is also clear that conservatism in Australia has become much less a political philosophy as it is a state of mind. How does one explain an entire group of people, most of whom were in politics well before climate change was an issue, fall in unison to an increasingly untenable position on climate change.
The weird thing is under Howard they went to the last election wanting to introduce an ETS and they had majority partyroom support for it under Turnball but now a few days later after kniving Turnball the Libs believe it's all a con ???.
Read the ultra-conservative blogs on the net and you see why individual thought is a crime ::). Those at the extreme justify and claim support for their denial of climate change by quoting each other and statements from conservative think-tank organisations yet try to pretend these "sources" are independent and scientific and "proof" that there's a growing swell against climate change. It's just one big group think spouting the same script around the world. It's amusing how they leave out 2009 data from troposphere temperature graphs because it contradicts their "decline" argument ;). Quite funny when you see through it but scarey at the time reading it because they are deadly serious about it being all one big conspiracy :help. I guess being obliterated at the next election may see those who have been silenced by the ultra-conservatives rise up to grab back their party and move the Libs back towards the centre of politics.
As for the ETS - the rest of the world will go ahead with it without us if need be. I'd rather Australia be a leader than a follower. This stalling "do nothing" tactic waiting to after Copenhagen won't change these denialists' minds.
-
I think you will find MT that there will be other countries that will not go ahead with an ETS. I guess we will see after Copenhagen.
I do agree that we need to look at clean energy alternatives but how is putting a tax on everything and then sending money to other countries going to help?? I would only agree to an ETS if the money was reinvested back into technologies and new clean fuel initiatives HERE IN AUSTRALIA. Essentially I am in favour of an Emissions Tax, not an ETS
Is anyone here that is in favour of an ETS aware that brokerage firms and middlemen will make millions of dollars in trading Carbon Credits and that their value will fluctuate based on overseas currencies? MMM that sounds tempting and will do so much good for the environment. :banghead
Can you imagine if we reinvested the billions of dollars that are generated from an ETS into research here in an effort seek out new clean fuel alternatives and improve on existing ones?? I have no doubt that we would be world leaders in clean fuel technologies if we did this. I still agree that Nuclear energy is the only large scale alternative to fossil fuel energy at present but there are too many dead heads in our political system that refuse to even consider nuclear fuel as a safe and viable energy source. Some of them need to visit Japan and see over 50 nuclear power stations working safely and reliably and have done so for quite some time. But no..they would prefer to dwell on Chernobyl rather than take of their mud coloured glasses to see that nuclear energy has come a long long way since then.
On another note, how can we send one cent out of this country with a clear conscience when we have people dying on waiting lists and overcrowded ill equipped hospitals, we have no substantial facilities for people of all ages with mental health issues. FFS we are putting young adults with mental and physical disabilities that cannot look after themselves into aged care facilities because we have no place to put them.
Oh and I'm assuming that everyone here at least has some idea of our current budget deficit?? I'm pretty sure its somewhere around 50 Billion dollars. But hey...lets leave that for our kids to pay off.
-
global warming will happen if we keep going the way we do. But ETS isnt the way to cut emissions and im glad it was voted down we(australia) do 1.5% thats nothing compared to china and america so no point us taxing our selfs to fix 5% of our small 1.5% emissions.
-
I think you will find MT that there will be other countries that will not go ahead with an ETS. I guess we will see after Copenhagen.
There will be a lot of talk about setting a global ETS up but yeah I wouldn't be surprised if nothing concrete is put forward at Copenhagen. I don't think they need to either as there was some agreement at Kyoto IIRC that 2012/2013 was the deadline for an agreement of some kind. I can't remember but I think it was something like that.
I do agree that we need to look at clean energy alternatives but how is putting a tax on everything and then sending money to other countries going to help?? I would only agree to an ETS if the money was reinvested back into technologies and new clean fuel initiatives HERE IN AUSTRALIA. Essentially I am in favour of an Emissions Tax, not an ETS
Is anyone here that is in favour of an ETS aware that brokerage firms and middlemen will make millions of dollars in trading Carbon Credits and that their value will fluctuate based on overseas currencies? MMM that sounds tempting and will do so much good for the environment. :banghead
An Emissions/Carbon Tax would be very regularatory though. The reason it was rejected in the Garnaut report IIRC was because a Carbon tax would have to be continually adjusted to meet current and future global conditions/markets. It would be a haphazard way of dealing with emissions and could add extra business costs simply due to its inefficiency. Companies need to plan for (say hedging against financially negative) future scenarioes. Regularatory schemes would make that difficult as companies may plan for a X% Carbon Tax and then 1,2,..5 years later it ends up being adjusted to Y% in one jump. The ETS was favoured because it is a market-forces based scheme. Yep sure there'll be carbon trading brokers who will make $$$ out of it but that happens now on the stock market with virtually every traded security. There are credit derivatives for instance that are traded so companies can hedge and diversify their exposure to risk. I think there's even weather derivatives. Investment firms can come up with all sorts of derivatives to meet client needs. It's the nature of the modern free market economy. Anything can be virtually traded nowdays Comrade tiga ;D.
Can you imagine if we reinvested the billions of dollars that are generated from an ETS into research here in an effort seek out new clean fuel alternatives and improve on existing ones?? I have no doubt that we would be world leaders in clean fuel technologies if we did this. I still agree that Nuclear energy is the only large scale alternative to fossil fuel energy at present but there are too many dead heads in our political system that refuse to even consider nuclear fuel as a safe and viable energy source. Some of them need to visit Japan and see over 50 nuclear power stations working safely and reliably and have done so for quite some time. But no..they would prefer to dwell on Chernobyl rather than take of their mud coloured glasses to see that nuclear energy has come a long long way since then.
I mentioned the NIMBY factor in a previous post but another factor to consider is the timeframe in which Australia could set up a fully running Nuclear power industry (say 25 power stations as Howard mentioned prior to the last election). I remember going to a talk about the timeframe for the development of fusion reactors rather than the fission reactors we have now. The speaker mentioned the timeframe for a practical commerical fusion reactor to be up and running had dropped from 50 years to about 30 years. I'm not sure where that's at now but if it's going to take 25 years to set up and construct today's fission reactors then we could be potentially building infrastructure that will be superceded by better technology by the time it is built. All these things need to be considered.
On another note, how can we send one cent out of this country with a clear conscience when we have people dying on waiting lists and overcrowded ill equipped hospitals, we have no substantial facilities for people of all ages with mental health issues. FFS we are putting young adults with mental and physical disabilities that cannot look after themselves into aged care facilities because we have no place to put them.
Oh and I'm assuming that everyone here at least has some idea of our current budget deficit?? I'm pretty sure its somewhere around 50 Billion dollars. But hey...lets leave that for our kids to pay off.
But what's our debt as a percentage of our GDP? The Australian economy is $1.1 trillion and growing and we just avoided the worst downturn in a long time. Most other OCED nations are still in the pooh and some (Japan?) have debt around 100% GDP :o. When you have deflation, following Keynesian economic principles (borrowing more inflation via stimulus measures to counter rising unemployment) isn't something unheard of.
Not excusing hospital waiting lists tiga but those issues have been going on for decades and never seem to get fixed :scream no matter who is in power and what promises they make while in opposition. Moreso the result of heartless incompetence anyhow by bureaucrats. Australia already donates money overseas to poorer countries as part of our international obligations. I don't see the argument against an ETS on that front when we hand over millions already. It hasn't hampered our growing prosperity in general.
-
We are not goin to cut Emissions by not going nuclear. that is a proven and safe energy source available right now.
-
Yep the technology is available right now and has been up and running safely for years in other western countries but even if we went down that track it would take 20-25 years to set up from what I've heard :-\. We would still need to reduce our CO2 emissions by alternative means in the near future.
Fusion reactors would be a better option to fission ones given they have nowhere near the nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of and those against nuclear power stations wouldn't be able to use the Chernobyl fear factor. Of course fusion reactors don't exist but they may in 30 years time. I'm just putting it out there as a possible reliable base-load future energy source when all we hear mentioned as alternatives are non base-load options such as solar, wind and thermal.
Just read Turnbull's spray at Abbott. The division in the Libs' ranks won't go away on this issue.
http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/702/Time-for-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspx
And finally a great vid showing how stupid those ultra-conservative conspiracy believers are over those hacked East Anglia emails. Too much logic and commonsense for the loopy far-right to handle :lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
-
I think people need to be more educated about nuclear power. Chernobyl wonte happen again its reactors was out dated technology even at the time of the disaster plus no western country uses RBMK reactors.
Nuclear experts say the changes have substantially reduced the technical likelihood of a repeat of the Chernobyl blast.
“Very significant changes have been made in the technology,” International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director Tomihiro Taniguchi told The Associated Press. “The IAEA is firmly committed that such an accident not happen again.”
-
I think people need to be more educated about nuclear power. Chernobyl wonte happen again its reactors was out dated technology even at the time of the disaster plus no western country uses RBMK reactors.
Nuclear experts say the changes have substantially reduced the technical likelihood of a repeat of the Chernobyl blast.
“Very significant changes have been made in the technology,” International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director Tomihiro Taniguchi told The Associated Press. “The IAEA is firmly committed that such an accident not happen again.”
Another thing about Chernobyl was the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing and as a result even basic standards and maintenance were neglected.
-
Nuke the middle east,USA,China,Japan and Russia.
-
Nuke the middle east,USA,China,Japan and Russia.
Chuck in India
-
Climate report heralds grave fears for state of the planet
Climate change has been argued about for years, but the latest findings suggest relaxed attitudes towards the phenomenom will result in dangerous consequences for our planet in the very near future
Early next week, hundreds of scientists will meet in Stockholm's Brewery Conference Centre to put the finishing touches on the world's most important climate change document. It is unlikely the beer will be flowing.
By Friday the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will have released the results of its labour - the first part of its fifth major assessment of climate science.
Its last report, released six years ago, delivered a stark message: the climate is warming mostly because of human activity and poses a major threat - especially if global temperatures increase by more than two degrees.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-report-heralds-grave-fears-for-state-of-the-planet-20130921-2u6fk.html#ixzz2fc2ekgIb
-
I hope Labor and the Greens have got the guts to stand up over this issue.
Debunking the persistent myth that global warming stopped in 1998
The latest climate change denial claim ahead of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report is that global warming stopped in 1998. A slowing in the observed rate of global warming has prompted dubious suggestions that temperatures have not increased significantly in the past 15 years.
It's true that after rising rapidly in the 1990s, global average temperature increases at the earth's surface have slowed since 1998. But warming hasn't stopped.
The last decade was the hottest on record globally. Each year from 2000 to 2010, except 2008, was in the 10 warmest recorded globally.
What's most concerning is that it should be considerably cooler than average, not hotter. Since 1997, several natural climate factors have aligned that should have produced a discernible cooling effect on global temperatures.
A lull in solar activity from 2005 to 2010, combined with two very strong La Nińa episodes from 2010 to 2012, would be expected to produce a strong decrease in global temperatures.
Yet the world hasn't cooled. On the contrary, global surface temperatures are moving in the opposite direction to natural climate variations, due to greenhouse gas warming.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html#ixzz2g3d6WHCG
-
Someone tell me, do I need to buy air conditioner for my new garage
-
Tony is a man of faith and is therefore incapable of reason. I'm no fan of Tony either 65, but for probably reasons much different than yourself. Alot of this article is just a cheap pot at Tony but the message is still the same
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-religion-and-the-dumb-country/
-
the funny thing about these religious right wing, tea party, fruit cakes, is that their capitalist ideals are against some of the laws that Yahweh spelled out and JC's socialist teachings.
-
Someone tell me, do I need to buy air conditioner for my new garage
nah but its better to have for the convenience of it. stick a tv and a fridge full of beers in the garage and your away. :thumbsup
-
A double dissolution still threatened.
Coalition stands firm on carbon tax double dissolution threat
October 14, 2013 - 2:05PM
Judith Ireland
Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the option of a double dissolution election remains on the table as the Coalition stares down Labor over the repeal of the carbon tax.
We will not stop until the carbon tax is repealed.
As Labor MPs returned to Canberra for a caucus meeting to determine its new frontbench, Mr Hunt called on the opposition to back the government's long-held plan to scrap the carbon tax.
Mr Hunt said the Coalition did not not want to wait and negotiate the repeal of the tax under the new-look Senate come July 1, 2014, again stating it would be the new government's first legislative act.
''The Australian public voted to terminate the carbon tax,'' Mr Hunt told reporters.
''The test for the ALP caucus today is whether or not they will listen to the Australian people or whether they will just continue to thumb their nose at the people of Australia who voted [to scrap the tax].
''We will not stop until the carbon tax is repealed.''
Mr Hunt told reporters that when it came to repealing the tax, ''all options are on the table''.
When pressed specifically on whether this included a double dissolution election, Mr Hunt repeated: ''All options are on the table.''
The Environment Minister added that the Coalition did not want to ''invoke other mechanisms'' to get rid of carbon pricing, explaining ''we want to get this done now''.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has previously said that the Coalition would do what was necessary to get rid of the tax, including using ''constitutional options''.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-stands-firm-on-carbon-tax-double-dissolution-threat-20131014-2vhtw.html#ixzz2hfS2PPef
-
Tony must be a magician standing firm and on his knees sucking the sausage of mining companies simultaneously
-
:lol
-
The 2013 scientific report into Climate Change by the IPCC ...
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
-
Why climate change is good for the world
Don't panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm
Matt Ridley 19 October 2013
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.
At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.
There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.
To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.
Now Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.
You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit.
Overall, Prof Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
It will still be 1.2 per cent around 2050 and will not turn negative until around 2080. In short, my children will be very old before global warming stops benefiting the world. Note that if the world continues to grow at 3 per cent a year, then the average person will be about nine times as rich in 2080 as she is today. So low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today.
The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.
Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.
The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates.
The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.
Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.
It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.
Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.
Well yes, you may argue, but what about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The latest IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.
In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the remarkable success of cyclone warnings in India last week. That’s the thing about climate change — we will probably pocket the benefits and mitigate at least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate does.
Yet cherry-picking the bad news remains rife. A remarkable example of this was the IPCC’s last report in 2007, which said that global warming would cause ‘hundreds of millions of people [to be] exposed to increased water stress’ under four different scenarios of future warming. It cited a study, which had also counted numbers of people at reduced risk of water stress — and in each case that number was higher. The IPCC simply omitted the positive numbers.
Why does this matter? Even if climate change does produce slightly more welfare for the next 70 years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There is one obvious reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.
As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay Ł165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us Ł1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every Ł100 spent fighting climate change brings Ł3 of benefit.
So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years. That’s like having radiotherapy because you are feeling too well. I just don’t share the certainty of so many in the green establishment that it’s worth it. It may be, but it may not.
Disclosure: by virtue of owning shares and land, I have some degree of interests in all almost all forms of energy generation: coal, wood, oil and gas, wind (reluctantly), nuclear, even biofuels, demand for which drives up wheat prices. I could probably make more money out of enthusiastically endorsing green energy than opposing it. So the argument presented here is not special pleading, just honest curiosity.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/)
-
What an arrogant twit this moron of a PM is.
Fast becoming the most embarrassing PM ever.
UN official 'talking through her hat' on bushfires and climate change, says Tony Abbott
Date October 23, 2013 - 2:17PM
Judith Ireland
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has dismissed the comments of a senior UN official who said there was a clear link between bushfires and climate change, arguing ''fire is a part of the Australian experience''.
In an interview with CNN, the head of the UN's climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said on Monday that there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales.
Ms Figueres also warned that the Coalition government would pay a high political and financial price for its decision to scrap carbon pricing.
Advertisement She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change.
"But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency," Ms Figueres said.
Mr Abbott batted away the comments on Wednesday, saying that Australia had had ''bad fires'' since the beginning of European settlement.
''Well I think the official in question is talking through her hat, if I may say so,'' he told Fairfax Radio.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-official-talking-through-her-hat-on-bushfires-and-climate-change-says-tony-abbott-20131023-2w0mz.html#ixzz2iWQEhfJo
-
What an arrogant twit this moron of a PM is.
Fast becoming the most embarrassing PM ever.
UN official 'talking through her hat' on bushfires and climate change, says Tony Abbott
Date October 23, 2013 - 2:17PM
Judith Ireland
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has dismissed the comments of a senior UN official who said there was a clear link between bushfires and climate change, arguing ''fire is a part of the Australian experience''.
In an interview with CNN, the head of the UN's climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said on Monday that there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales.
Ms Figueres also warned that the Coalition government would pay a high political and financial price for its decision to scrap carbon pricing.
Advertisement She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change.
"But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency," Ms Figueres said.
Mr Abbott batted away the comments on Wednesday, saying that Australia had had ''bad fires'' since the beginning of European settlement.
''Well I think the official in question is talking through her hat, if I may say so,'' he told Fairfax Radio.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-official-talking-through-her-hat-on-bushfires-and-climate-change-says-tony-abbott-20131023-2w0mz.html#ixzz2iWQEhfJo
-
Fire fighter and climate science expert :clapping :clapping
super Tony
-
Uummm, a person who is paid handsomely in her job to peddle unsubstantiated inaccuracies as fact to place fear in the public arena in order to justify her position. Yes, that's who I'll be listening to..................not.
Bush fuel is to blame for NSW blazes, not United Nations' climate change theory, experts say
MALCOLM HOLLAND Environment Reporter
The Daily Telegraph
October 23, 2013 1:33AM
CLAIMS by the United Nations that climate change was "absolutely" linked to the current NSW bushfires was dismissed as rubbish by both veteran experts and local residents who survived previous Blue Mountains infernos.
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres told CNN yesterday that climate change was creating more intense bushfires.
"What we have seen are just introductions to the doom and gloom we could be facing,'' Ms Figueres said. "The World Meteorological Organisation has not established the direct link between this wildfire and climate change - yet. [ :o :lol and there it is in one small comment but to the blind it's still all Abbott's fault :wallywink]
"But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heatwaves in Asia, Europe and Australia, that they will continue in their intensity and frequency."
But leading bushfire experts said it was ridiculous to link the current crisis to climate change when the most recent major report from the UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world's weather had warmed by just 0.89C since the start of the 20th century.
"If there is any global warming, the global warming is so slow and so small the bushfire event is totally overrun by the fuel state," retired Monash University researcher David Packham said.
He said reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is what was urgently needed.
Research by Phil Cheney, a former head of CSIRO Bushfire Research, has found "the effect of (increasing temperatures forecast by the IPCC) on bushfire behaviour, by itself, will be trivial''.
"Fire intensity is far more significantly affected by fuel quantity, fuel dryness and wind strength than it is by temperature,'' he said.
In November 1957, bushfires driven by gale-force winds destroyed 25 homes, shops, schools, a church and a hospital in the Blue Mountains, and four young men died.
Local resident John Macgregor-Skinner, who was part of the 1957 fire-fighting effort, said yesterday it had been 5 degrees hotter then. "The Greens might try to blame Tony Abbott but in reality the blame is firmly in their court with their continued obstruction to planned widespread hazard reduction."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bush-fuel-is-to-blame-for-nsw-blazes-not-united-nations-climate-change-theory-experts-say/story-fni0cx12-1226744870197 (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bush-fuel-is-to-blame-for-nsw-blazes-not-united-nations-climate-change-theory-experts-say/story-fni0cx12-1226744870197)
And while we are on the subject of the 'factual' and learned' and 'unbiased' Ms Figueres, here is some more of her tripe:
"The science is telling us that there are increasing heatwaves in Asia, Europe and Australia, that these will continue, that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency - an example of what we may be looking at unless we take actually vigorous action."
Actually, the IPCC in their latest report says:
"This combined with issues with defining events, leads to the assessment that there is medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century although it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia."
She says:
"What you have just seen on the screen [the NSW fires] is just one scenario and it is a scenario that we would walk toward unless we take, as I say, vigorous action. But there is another scenario, okay. What we have seen are just introductions to the doom and gloom that we could be facing."
The IPCC says:
"In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms… In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century… [There] is medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century… In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.... Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific..."
She says:
"The fact is we are already, as you have just pointed out, we are really already paying the price of carbon. We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with drought, we are paying the price with so many other disturbances to the hydrological cycle. That is all the price that we are paying."
Facts are there are no more "disturbances to the hydrological cycle" today or this year or this century than there have ever been in the history of this planet.
And all the while the real spend of climate change is an annual global figure in excess of $1billion per day based on the fear-mongering led by wealthy vested interest parties such as Al Gore. $1billion per day that is being spent on something that is changing as it has for millions of years and in spite of anything man is doing or has done in the past couple of thousand. $1 billion dollars spent on eradicating poverty or advancing third world economies or saving endangered species of wildlife would be worth it. Lining the pockets of a gaggle of pigs with their noses buried deep in the trough of 'climate change' just shows how stupid the human race still is and how we are still capable of being led over the cliff in our lemming millions.
But I suppose it all really is Abbott's fault for calling it like it really is. :wallywink
-
I reckon the debate on climate change is a dead set draw.Countless journalists and scientists say its an ever growing presence in our lives and far fewer say its not.That balances the argumensts up pretty well for mine
-
If you want the moron party and moron politicians whose reckless and idiotic ideas are the real reason for most of the tragic fires we now see then here it is:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2en57ut.jpg)
Nah, 'spose it's all Abbott's fault because all he does is go out and try and save his fellow citizens from dying due to these idiots and their policies.
-
nothing to do with tony Abbott.
Actually I think Tones shown wonderfull leadership during the bushfires and has shown the way on community involvement...I dips me lid to him
-
And I thought Tony was the biggest moron in the Liberal Party.
Greg Hunt uses Wikipedia research to dismiss links between climate change and bushfires
October 24, 2013 - 10:20AM
Esther Han, Judith Ireland
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has hosed down suggestions of a link between climate change and increased bushfire intensity, saying he had ''looked up what Wikipedia'' said and it was clear that bushfires in Australia were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months since before European settlement.
His comments come as scientists, environment groups and politicians have raised concerns, in the wake of massive bushfires in New South Wales, on whether the pattern of increasing extreme weather events was linked to climate change.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2iaie1RjI
-
and from the same article
And isn't this a fact that should be obvious to anyone with a half a brain
While Mr Gore, a Nobel Prize-winning climate change activist, did accept bushfires were natural occurrences, he said they would be much worse in a world with high temperatures, dried out soil and vegetation.
''Wildfires become more pervasive and dangerous,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2iajQwu7C
-
How dare he politicize fires >:(
-
and from the same article
And isn't this a fact that should be obvious to anyone with a half a brain
While Mr Gore, a Nobel Prize-winning climate change activist, did accept bushfires were natural occurrences, he said they would be much worse in a world with high temperatures, dried out soil and vegetation.
''Wildfires become more pervasive and dangerous,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2iajQwu7C
I would suggest it took all of that moron's half brain to come up with that. Of course Captain Obvious, the only flaw in that thieving flogbag's point is that the globe isn't warming by anywhere enough to make a fire-causing difference to soil and vegetation but the reluctance of governments to now back burn in high risk areas (which has been driven in large by f-wit parties like the Greens and fuelled by vested interest individuals like Gore) will make bushfires more pervasive and dangerous. Cliff, meet lemming.
-
I would suggest it took all of that moron's half brain to come up with that. Of course Captain Obvious, the only flaw in that thieving flogbag's point is that the globe isn't warming by anywhere enough to make a fire-causing difference to soil and vegetation but the reluctance of governments to now back burn in high risk areas (which has been driven in large by f-wit parties like the Greens and fuelled by vested interest individuals like Gore) will make bushfires more pervasive and dangerous. Cliff, meet lemming.
Yet
-
Got any proof?
Smoke?
Do you feel white human impact has positively impacted the environment in this country of 200 yeas?
-
Got any proof?
Smoke?
Do you feel white human impact has positively impacted the environment in this country of 200 yeas?
2 separate issues Bents and that's why I get so angry with the climate change industry sucking the money out of the global economy at a rate far faster than it can afford, and to the detriment of far greater world issues such as poverty, third world economies and the environment.
Climate change is not caused by humans, it has been happening since we had the Big Bang and will continue to do so until the next Big Bang. The planet has gone through a number of major climatic events in its history, far greater than the normal seasonal moves we see today and it will continue to do so in spite of what Gore and his leeching cronies scare people into believing. The environment however, is impacted hugely by the human race and that's where we should be focusing our efforts and spending money - saving endangered wildlife, stopping pollution, harvesting land and sea in a sustainable way, not getting wealthy countries to line the pockets of those who suckle on the teet of the climate change industry.
The amount of carbon produced by humans is such a minute amount in the air that it has no discernible impact on the climate and to tax us for that is just an underhand way for governments and the world climate change industry (for that's all it is - a profit making industry for the elite) to rob us of money. The world is not warming at a rate that will cause climate change, the sea ice in the world is not declining (in some areas it's increasing to record levels), the planet is actually greening itself more, and there is no significant change up or down in the number or type of catastrophic climatic events such as cyclones, fires, floods etc. The climate has always changed and will always change regardless of what we do but what is happening at present is that some entrepreneurial types such as Al Gore have seized on their minute slice of time on earth to promote a campaign of fear that lines their collective pockets just nicely thank you.
And the lemmings continue to march.............
-
I would suggest it took all of that moron's half brain to come up with that. Of course Captain Obvious, the only flaw in that thieving flogbag's point is that the globe isn't warming by anywhere enough to make a fire-causing difference to soil and vegetation but the reluctance of governments to now back burn in high risk areas (which has been driven in large by f-wit parties like the Greens and fuelled by vested interest individuals like Gore) will make bushfires more pervasive and dangerous. Cliff, meet lemming.
Yet
Sorry '65, I have completely missed the point you are trying to make here?
-
2 separate issues Bents and that's why I get so angry with the climate change industry sucking the money out of the global economy at a rate far faster than it can afford, and to the detriment of far greater world issues such as poverty, third world economies and the environment.
Climate change is not caused by humans, it has been happening since we had the Big Bang and will continue to do so until the next Big Bang. The planet has gone through a number of major climatic events in its history, far greater than the normal seasonal moves we see today and it will continue to do so in spite of what Gore and his leeching cronies scare people into believing. The environment however, is impacted hugely by the human race and that's where we should be focusing our efforts and spending money - saving endangered wildlife, stopping pollution, harvesting land and sea in a sustainable way, not getting wealthy countries to line the pockets of those who suckle on the teet of the climate change industry.
You are a fool if you believe that climate change is not caused by humans.
-
Apparently Betsy the cow is ripping them off on the hour and she is along with the rest of her kind are serious contributors to global warming. When asked as to why she was deliberately contributing to Global warming, she simply replied..."Moo".
Can't take that quote out of context ABC. :lol
Al Gore's next book will be titled, "An inconvenient Moo." :P
-
Apparently Betsy the cow is ripping them off on the hour and she is along with the rest of her kind are serious contributors to global warming. When asked as to why she was deliberately contributing to Global warming, she simply replied..."Moo".
Can't take that quote out of context ABC. :lol
Al Gore's next book will be titled, "An inconvenient Moo." :P
It would certainly help.
Let's shoot all the cows (bugger the Indians who worship/revere them)
:lol
-
It's not a matter of if climate change is caused by humans, as climate change has always happened.
It's a matter of how much, or if at all, human activity has on the rate of climate change .
Two things to keep in mind when these sort of things are being discussed.
1. follow the money. if someone sprouting one side of the argument has a vested interest, then take what they say with a grain of salt.
2. Consensus. if someone resorts to telling you there is a consensus, chances are they are full of it.
as the late Michael Chrichton once said;
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
-
Smoke using big bang twice has compelled me to agree with his line of thinking
-
:lol
-
Look at Tar Sands Canada and argue humanity is not harming the planet
Mordor is real...
(http://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/before-after-en.jpg)
(http://sustainableforlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mordor-vs-tar-sands1.jpg)
-
Agreeing that warming has happened before. Geological records show that the level of carbon in the atmosphere has been as high as 2000ppm. Currently it's around 700ppm. We are fresh from an ice age so naturally sea ice is still gradually melting. There is no record of climate change debates and taxes from ancient cultures when the Mediterranean burst the bosphorous and poured into the black sea (except a story about a bloke and his boat that has been handed down a million times). It's natural and it happens. Though in the past the Earth's natural mechanisms kicked in. More CO2, more food for plants, less water consumption, higher yields and dedesertification. With human population boom due to things like cheating Darwinism and deforestation we're actually preventing the natural ways the Earth has regulated itself from turning into Venus.
Regarding Al's excellent quote, that would be lost on our PM. He believes that as long as we're around the Earth will be peachy because the bible tells him so. Anybody who has a foundation in faith should be unable to run for office. Nobody of faith is capable of rational debate.
-
Do you right wing lunnies believe the sea is becoming unnaturally more acidic
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
-
I missed the fact that he made this comment on the BBC world radio.
What an absolute effing moron.
And I thought Tony was the biggest moron in the Liberal Party.
Greg Hunt uses Wikipedia research to dismiss links between climate change and bushfires
October 24, 2013 - 10:20AM
Esther Han, Judith Ireland
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has hosed down suggestions of a link between climate change and increased bushfire intensity, saying he had ''looked up what Wikipedia'' said and it was clear that bushfires in Australia were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months since before European settlement.
His comments come as scientists, environment groups and politicians have raised concerns, in the wake of massive bushfires in New South Wales, on whether the pattern of increasing extreme weather events was linked to climate change.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2iaie1RjI
-
There is no link between climate and bushfires. Idiots going and lighting fires has nothing to do with the climate its got plenty to do with their upbringing and education where usually they have been molly coddled by left wing socialist nutjob teachers and parents who are usually sucking the life out of the federal social security budget by claiming the dole and fleecing the commonwealth of child support payments for about 7 kids usually to 5 different fathers including some abos and other no hopers.
-
There is no link between climate and bushfires. Idiots going and lighting fires has nothing to do with the climate its got plenty to do with their upbringing and education where usually they have been molly coddled by left wing socialist nutjob teachers and parents who are usually sucking the life out of the federal social security budget by claiming the dole and fleecing the commonwealth of child support payments for about 7 kids usually to 5 different fathers including some abos and other no hopers.
Yeah, good try.
:cheers
-
There is no link between climate and bushfires. Idiots going and lighting fires has nothing to do with the climate its got plenty to do with their upbringing and education where usually they have been molly coddled by left wing socialist nutjob teachers and parents who are usually sucking the life out of the federal social security budget by claiming the dole and fleecing the commonwealth of child support payments for about 7 kids usually to 5 different fathers including some abos and other no hopers.
Yeah, good try.
:cheers
I thought it was a good effort myself ;D
-
There is no link between climate and bushfires. Idiots going and lighting fires has nothing to do with the climate its got plenty to do with their upbringing and education where usually they have been molly coddled by left wing socialist nutjob teachers and parents who are usually sucking the life out of the federal social security budget by claiming the dole and fleecing the commonwealth of child support payments for about 7 kids usually to 5 different fathers including some abos and other no hopers.
You forgot communist tree hugging Muslim lesbians
Stop the bosts. Drown the sand-niggers. How dare they build mosks take center link in my country
-
There is no link between climate and bushfires. Idiots going and lighting fires has nothing to do with the climate its got plenty to do with their upbringing and education where usually they have been molly coddled by left wing socialist nutjob teachers and parents who are usually sucking the life out of the federal social security budget by claiming the dole and fleecing the commonwealth of child support payments for about 7 kids usually to 5 different fathers including some abos and other no hopers.
You forgot communist tree hugging Muslim lesbians
Stop the bosts. Drown the sand-mans. How dare they build mosks take center link in my country
Bents, I appreciate the support but what the eff is a mosk?
:lol
-
Where da terrorism comes from
-
Where da terrorism comes from
the streets of collingwood? ;D
-
:lol
-
As Pauline said....
Please explain.
Abbott likens carbon tax to socialism in speech to party faithful
The Prime Minister Tony Abbott has used Labor's internal leadership rivalries as ammunition to goad the Opposition into helping scrap the carbon tax.
Mr Abbott wants legislation to end the tax passed by Christmas but has so far failed to secure enough support in the Senate.
In a speech to party faithful in Tasmania, Mr Abbott said Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's change of heart on the Labor leadership is evidence he can alter his position.
Mr Shorten switched his support from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd before the 2013 federal election.
"We know that he's capable of changing his mind," Mr Abbott said.
"We remember what he said about Julia Gillard until quite recently. He changed his mind about her.
"Well Bill, if you can change your mind on your colleagues you can change your mind on something of far more weight to the people of Australia."
Mr Abbott also said the carbon tax was a socialist policy in disguise.
"Let's be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism mask raiding as environmentalism," he said.
"That's what the carbon tax was."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-26/abbott-attacks-shortencarbon-tax-socialism-labor/5047758
-
As Pauline said....
Please explain.
Abbott likens carbon tax to socialism in speech to party faithful
The Prime Minister Tony Abbott has used Labor's internal leadership rivalries as ammunition to goad the Opposition into helping scrap the carbon tax.
Mr Abbott wants legislation to end the tax passed by Christmas but has so far failed to secure enough support in the Senate.
In a speech to party faithful in Tasmania, Mr Abbott said Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's change of heart on the Labor leadership is evidence he can alter his position.
Mr Shorten switched his support from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd before the 2013 federal election.
"We know that he's capable of changing his mind," Mr Abbott said.
"We remember what he said about Julia Gillard until quite recently. He changed his mind about her.
"Well Bill, if you can change your mind on your colleagues you can change your mind on something of far more weight to the people of Australia."
Mr Abbott also said the carbon tax was a socialist policy in disguise.
"Let's be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism mask raiding as environmentalism," he said.
"That's what the carbon tax was."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-26/abbott-attacks-shortencarbon-tax-socialism-labor/5047758
cant call him a fascist
dont wanna invoke godwankers law
but tony can call others commies, not-a-worry
(http://critical-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/marx-racist1.jpg)
---
Labor criticises changes to fire payments
12:37pm October 26, 2013
Thoughts with those hit by fires: Shorten
NSW fire appeals raise money, waive fees
"Australians certainly didn't vote for cuts to disaster-affected communities," Ms Plibersek told the South Australian ALP conference on Saturday.
"At this time when there is so much devastation, why would you withdraw that very modest amount that governments have given in the past to support people who are affected?" Tonyzz :clapping
Federal government payments of $1000 per adult and $400 per child are now available to people who are injured or whose homes are destroyed or damaged in the fires.
It's currently being offered to affected people in the local government areas of the Blue Mountains, Lake Macquarie, Lithgow, Muswellbrook, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Port Stephens, Wingecarribee, Wyong, and Wollondilly.
But Ms Plibersek said people who had to flee the fires then return to find their home still standing but in need of serious clean-up efforts would miss out.
In contrast, she said, payments under the Labor government helped 400,000 people clean up after the 2011 Queensland floods and another 63,000 after the 2009 Victorian bushfires.
She acknowledged Prime Minister Tony Abbott had praised people fighting the fires and given personal assistance to the effort.
Earlier in the week, Assistant Minister for Social Services Mitch Fifield said the eligibility changes were designed to ensure people most in need got assistance first and the government would continue to assess the situation.
Ministers responsible for the payments were asked for further comment on Saturday.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/26/12/40/labor-criticises-changes-to-fire-payments
-
Tony is a moron if he doesn't listen.
The ETS is cheaper.
Economists remain convinced carbon tax or ETS is the way forward
October 28, 2013
Matt Wade
Years of bitter political combat over climate change policy has left the economics profession unmoved.
Despite Prime Minister Tony Abbott's plans to rid Australia of what he calls the "toxic" carbon tax, the poll by Fairfax Media shows there is near-unanimity among economists that a market-based solution, such as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, is the best policy option to reduce carbon pollution. This echoes similar surveys taken in past years.
Economists are convinced that carbon pricing will yield the greatest environmental bang-for-buck at the lowest economic cost.
Justin Wolfers, an Australian professor at the University of Michigan, says: "Abbott's plan doesn't effectively harness market forces; it relies instead on the government handing out cheques.
''One problem is that we'll end up subsidising a lot of abatement that would have occurred anyway. Another is that the plan imposes extra costs because it uses scarce tax dollars . . . All told, Direct Action involves more economic disruption for less of an environmental payoff."
Melbourne University professor John Freebairn said he favoured a carbon price because it encouraged millions of businesses and households to shift their production and consumption choices to lower pollution, lower price alternatives.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/economists-remain-convinced-carbon-tax-or-ets-is-the-way-forward-20131027-2w9rv.html#ixzz2iyVcAe9W
-
Shut up u commie bastard :banghead
-
:lol
-
(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/099/4/4/The_Red_Menace_Is_REAL_by_Hartter.jpg)
:police: Reported ;D
-
History will remember Rudd's apology and Gillard Disability care reforms.
I wonder how Tony will be remembered
Emissions target inadequate, says Climate Change Authority
October 30, 2013 - 11:17AM
Peter Hannam
Carbon economy editor
Australia's greenhouse gas reduction target of 5 per cent this decade is inadequate and should be increased to at least 15 per cent, according to the agency set up to advise the government on climate change policy.
In a draft report that is likely to ignite further debate about the Abbott government's policies, the Climate Change Authority said Australia should aim for a 15 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 compared with 2000 levels as a ''minimum option''.
The authority, which the Coalition has vowed to scrap, said it would represent ''an equitable share'' of the estimated global emissions budget that could limit global warming to 2 degrees by mid-century.
The draft report, which is due to be finalised by the end of February if the authority survives until then, also recommends considering an even deeper cut of 25 per cent by 2020 to allow ''a more consistent pace of emissions reductions'' needed out to 2050.
Authority chairman and former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser said: ''If Australia is to take this science – and the below 2 degrees goal – seriously, it needs to act now and continue this effort over the long term.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/emissions-target-inadequate-says-climate-change-authority-20131030-2wey1.html#ixzz2jAD2QJlc
-
Shut up u commie bastard :banghead
Does Bents get a Nobel nomination for Literature? ;D
-
Climate change is not caused by humans
I'm sure the science community looks forward your submitted paper backing this up Smokey ;D. For starters ...
You need to explain what natural phenomenon has caused CO2 levels to rise to 400ppm and rising (33% higher than the maximum of the natural fluctuation of CO2 levels (180ppm-300ppm) over the past 400,000 years or so due to the Milankovitch cycles)?
You need to explain what natural phenomenon has caused the ratio of Carbon isotopes C13/C12 in the atmosphere to fall over the past 150 years after this ratio had remained relatively constant for the past 400,000 years or so?
it has been happening since we had the Big Bang and will continue to do so until the next Big Bang.
Ummm the Earth wasn't around at the Big Bang :nope and it makes no sense to say the "next Big Bang".
The planet has gone through a number of major climatic events in its history, far greater than the normal seasonal moves we see today and it will continue to do so in spite of what Gore and his leeching cronies scare people into believing.
First part of this sentence is true but they can all be explained by natural phenomena. Add to that Humans weren't around when most of these major events occurred and the Earth's climate make-up was very different to that of today (eg: the Oxygen level in the atmosphere roughly a billion years ago was just 1%; it's rise to 20-22% spawned the evolution of macro-species).
The environment however, is impacted hugely by the human race and that's where we should be focusing our efforts and spending money - saving endangered wildlife, stopping pollution, harvesting land and sea in a sustainable way, not getting wealthy countries to line the pockets of those who suckle on the teet of the climate change industry.
It's not an either situation. Climate changes impact on the environment.
The amount of carbon produced by humans is such a minute amount in the air that it has no discernible impact on the climate
I love this old red herring excuse on two fronts :lol.
(i) The Earth's atmosphere is made up mostly of Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%) and Argon (0.9%). Now the more mathematically inclined on OER will find that adds up to 99.9%. Now these three gases are NOT greenhouse gases. So only a very small proportion of the atmosphere (<0.1%) are greenhouse gases of which CO2 makes up currently 400ppm (=0.04%). Now the existence of these greenhouse gases, despite their 'small' proportionality, results in approximately a 20-30 degree Celsius increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth (eg: 30 degrees higher than compared to treating the Earth as a "black body"). So small changes within the atmosphere can have significantly effects.
(ii) Your statement treats the amount of CO2 as absolute which is the wrong way of understanding how the Carbon cycle works. It naturally works in terms of a dynamical equilibrium between CO2 sources and CO2 sinks. Man is having an effect on both sides of this equilibrium and artificially unbalancing it. We are firstly taking Carbon-based substances (fossil fuels/hydrocarbons), which are buried and not part of the natural atmospheric Carbon cycle, and as a by-product of burning them to create energy, we are artificially adding excess CO2 into the atmosphere (ie. we have created an additional man-made CO2 source). We know it's man-made as the ratio of Carbon isotopes C13/C12 is different in fossil fuels than in the atmosphere and as a result we are altering this ratio in the atmosphere over time. Secondly, via deforestation, we are reducing the natural CO2 'sinks'. This dual effect combined is leading to this continual increase in CO2 levels which then leads to global warming and climate change.
and to tax us for that is just an underhand way for governments and the world climate change industry (for that's all it is - a profit making industry for the elite) to rob us of money.
Ah a conspiracy theory! Quite funny actually after listening on 3aw last week to a representative of the electricity wholesalers association saying that people with solar panels should be forced to pay more money to the electricity companies because it's not fair they aren't paying as much as they use to before they got solar panels :rollin. Yep the fossil fuel industry isn't robbing us by jacking up our bills over the past decade even though we've individually cut back our electricity usage ::).
The world is not warming at a rate that will cause climate change, the sea ice in the world is not declining (in some areas it's increasing to record levels), the planet is actually greening itself more, and there is no significant change up or down in the number or type of catastrophic climatic events such as cyclones, fires, floods etc. The climate has always changed and will always change regardless of what we do
Do you have an actual scientific source for any of this?
but what is happening at present is that some entrepreneurial types such as Al Gore have seized on their minute slice of time on earth to promote a campaign of fear that lines their collective pockets just nicely thank you.
Climate 'sceptics' are doing nicely themselves. As an example, Dr Willy Soon was funded almost a million dollars by Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries. The Heartland Institute, which most of these 'sceptics' belong to, also received large funds from the oil industry in America; just as they received large funds from tobacco companies to take on medical science to dispute the link between smoking and lung cancer.
And the lemmings continue to march.............
Yes they do on wacko 'the scientists are out to get us' conspiracy blogs and websites :lol
-
Looks like Labor is giving Tony an escape clause.
I don't think he wants a double dissolution.
Too many voters are starting to realise what an incompetent lot they voted into power.
Bill Shorten backs scrapping of carbon tax, on condition of replacement ETS
Date November 1, 2013 - 3:02PM
Jonathan Swan
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has unveiled Labor's position on climate change, saying he will offer to “terminate” the carbon tax on the condition that Tony Abbott introduces an emissions trading scheme.
In an offer the Prime Minister is certain to reject, Mr Shorten said Labor would propose an amendment to the Coalition's bills to repeal the price on carbon.
The amendment would let Mr Abbott abolish the carbon tax immediately but only on the basis that the Coalition moves to an emissions trading scheme.
Advertisement If the Prime Minister rejects the offer, Mr Shorten said Labor would oppose the Abbott government’s repeal of the carbon legislation. In that event, Mr Abbott would have to wait until the new Senate begins in July 2014 to abolish the carbon tax.
Mr Abbott made abolishing the carbon tax the centrepiece of his successful election campaign, and there is no chance the Prime Minister will accept Labor’s offer.
Given Mr Abbott's determination to repeal the carbon tax as first order of business, Labor's ultimatum keeps the possibility alive of a double dissolution election.
But the Coalition is understood to want to avoid another poll so soon after the election, and in order for a double dissolution to happen the legislation would need to be rejected twice by the Senate.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-backs-scrapping-of-carbon-tax-on-condition-of-replacement-ets-20131101-2wqc9.html#ixzz2jQKpn300
-
Even Christine Milne doesn't think Tony has the guts to call a double dissolution.
Christine Milne says the Coalition will not call a double-dissolution election to scrap carbon tax
By Naomi Woodley
Greens leader Christine Milne says Prime Minister Tony Abbott does not have the courage to call a double-dissolution election in order to scrap the carbon tax before next July.
Labor yesterday said it would support the repeal legislation if the Coalition accepted amendments that would see the introduction of an emissions-trading scheme.
Labor's position leaves some wriggle room, but not much, and there is no sign the Government will agree to its proposal.
The Coalition has a long-held policy of replacing the carbon tax with its direct-action policy, which would see the Federal Government intervene directly to businesses and homes to lower emissions.
Ms Milne has confirmed that her party will not support the Government's repeal legislation, even with Labor's proposed amendments.
"Labor isn't even clear itself on what its amendments may or may not be. It hasn't said what the target it would want in the bill to be either," she said.
"Labor knows as well as I do that we have an emissions trading scheme already legislated. It is the law in Australia; it's operating with a fixed price and will go to a flexible price.
"What people who care about climate change want to hear is that there is a serious effort in the Federal Parliament to maintain the only scheme we have which is bringing down emissions.
"And that's especially in the week when the scientists are telling us that we have to do much more than we're already doing."
Labor's stance and the Greens' ongoing resistance means, in all likelihood, the Government will have to wait until the new Senate sits next July to pass the repeal bill, or risk going to a double-dissolution election before then.
However, the prospect of a fresh election does not bother Ms Milne.
"I don't think [Tony Abbott] would have the courage to go to a double dissolution. There are plenty of governments who've had the trigger and not gone to a double dissolution and I think Tony Abbott would not have the courage to do it frankly," she said.
-
Strongest storm recorded history
(CNN, ABC)
Coincidence
-
Liberal party rhetoric shown to be the pack of lies it has always been.
Abbott shouldn't complain about a carbon tax delay
By Mungo MacCallum
Mon 11 Nov 2013
Life turns out to be not as simple as Tony Abbott's slogans.
Prices were never going to plummet in the absence of a carbon tax, so the longer its scrapping is delayed, the longer this reality is kept hidden, writes Mungo MacCallum.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his ministers are having great fun lambasting Labor's decision to continue to oppose the repeal of the carbon tax unless it is replaced with an emissions trading scheme, as Kevin Rudd proposed before the last election.
It is, they claim, a travesty of democracy, denying the government's mandate and frustrating the clearly expressed will of the electorate. And some of them are adding privately, it is also a great relief because it enables Abbott to preserve what is left of his credibility on the issue - at least for a while longer.
Much of Abbott's railing against the great big new tax on everything has already been exposed for the bluster it always was. Whyalla has not been wiped out, the Sunday roast is still affordable, and the dreaded python squeeze has singularly failed to strangle the economy. This has been of little consequence to an electorate long inured to political hyperbole and happy to muddle along in spite of it.
But the voters still react strongly to any twinges from what Ben Chifley identified as the most sensitive part of their anatomy, the hip pocket nerve: and they do believe that the carbon tax has significantly raised their cost of living. Their budgets long ago absorbed the compensation introduced by the last government and to be continued by the present one, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are doing it tough.
Obviously the most direct impact has come from increases in their electricity and gas bills, but they are also inclined to credit Abbott's endlessly repeated claim that the carbon tax has put up the cost of just about everything. And they expect that as soon as the tax is repealed, prices will fall. After all, that is what Abbott and his team promised: instant relief, and plenty of it. Electricity down by 9 per cent, gas down by 7 per cent and across the board savings totalling $550 a year for the average family - whatever that is. What do we want? More money. When do we want it? Now.
But the brutal reality is that we are unlikely to get it - at least not much of it, and not for quite a while. Yet again, life turns out to be not as simple as Tony Abbott's slogans.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-11/maccallum-carbon-tax/5082476
-
Strongest storm recorded history
(CNN, ABC)
Coincidence
Based on what? Not wind strength or rainfall so what is that based on?
-
Strongest storm recorded history
(CNN, ABC)
Coincidence
Based on what? Not wind strength or rainfall so what is that based on?
It's all subjective, but if it's not the strongest in recorded history to hit land then it would definitely be in the top 5. Many have Typhoon Tip as the strongest in history as it had a lower pressure than Haiyan (Tip was around 870 hPa and Haiyan something like 890 hPa) yet Haiyan had higher maximum winds. Tip only took about 100 lives and Haiyan is already at about 300 confirmed and expected to top 10000. Hit different regions though. Haiyan went through Leyte and Cebu (popular tourist region) which are pretty poor, very densely populated and many live in shanties. So they were wiped away in the 6meter storm surge.
Manilla is ok though (if anyone is interested). My old man is there at the moment and heard from him on Friday. Was starting to get worried because I couldn't reach him but he called on Sunday to complain about the humidity and said Manilla was untouched.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/australia-warmest-ever-calendar-year
Coincidence
-
Smokey > The Weather Channel
-
I keep trying tO post info that debunks the 'strongest storm" theory but it keeps telling me I am forbidden to access this server! :o
As a troubleshooting effort, here is the post without the links:
Strongest storm recorded history
(CNN, ABC)
Coincidence
Based on what? Not wind strength or rainfall so what is that based on?
It's all subjective, but if it's not the strongest in recorded history to hit land then it would definitely be in the top 5. Many have Typhoon Tip as the strongest in history as it had a lower pressure than Haiyan (Tip was around 870 hPa and Haiyan something like 890 hPa) yet Haiyan had higher maximum winds. Tip only took about 100 lives and Haiyan is already at about 300 confirmed and expected to top 10000. Hit different regions though. Haiyan went through Leyte and Cebu (popular tourist region) which are pretty poor, very densely populated and many live in shanties. So they were wiped away in the 6meter storm surge.
Manilla is ok though (if anyone is interested). My old man is there at the moment and heard from him on Friday. Was starting to get worried because I couldn't reach him but he called on Sunday to complain about the humidity and said Manilla was untouched.
Yeah, my mate lives in Cebu and he was offline for about 12 hours. Said they got a bit of wind and rain but missed the worst of it thankfully. As long as they are all safe is the main thing but it appears the tragedy of human loss of life was mostly because of the poor living conditions of the thousands of people who live in the area the storm crossed land.
Here's what the Guardian, NY Times, BBC and others reported:
http://tinyurl.com/k8n8s67 (http://tinyurl.com/k8n8s67)
http://tinyurl.com/ly9ctdf (http://tinyurl.com/ly9ctdf)
Winds of 195mph+.
Here's what the Philippine Met Agency reported at the time:
http://tinyurl.com/l7wjerc (http://tinyurl.com/l7wjerc)
It seems the media have a serious deficiency in trying to distinguish between mph and kmh, a minor issue I'm sure when reporting facts!
Here's what our won BOM have to say on storms just in our country:
Strongest Wind Gust
The highest recorded wind gust recorded in the Australian region is 408 km/h at Barrow Island (data courtesy of Chevron) during cyclone Olivia on 10 April 1996. This is a world record for the highest wind gust ever recorded eclipsing the previous record - 372 km/h at Mt Washington Observatory NH, USA on 12 April 1934. A wind gust of 267 km/h was also recorded at Varanus Island during Olivia.
The strongest wind gust recorded on the Australian mainland is 267 km/h. The gust was recorded during cyclone Vance at 11:50 am (WST) 22 March 1999 at Learmonth Meteorological Office, 35 km south of Exmouth.
Wind gusts of 259 km/h at Mardie and 246 km/h at Onslow were measured during cyclone Trixie in February 1975.
By definition a category 5 cyclone produces gusts of at least 280 km/h. This means these gusts have gone unrecorded when category 5 cyclones have crossed the coast. Also, measurements of such winds are inherently going to be suspect as instruments often are completely destroyed or damaged at these speeds. The Onslow anemometer was destroyed after measuring the gust of 246 km/h during Trixie in 1975 as was the Darwin anemometer during Tracy also in 1974.
http://tinyurl.com/m92n76v (http://tinyurl.com/m92n76v)
Here's an article with further Philippine Met reports and other info, among it this:
So at landfall the sustained wind was 235 kmh or 147 mph, with gusts upto 275 kmh or 171 mph. This is 60 mph less than the BBC have quoted.
The maximum strength reached by the typhoon appears to have been around landfall, as the reported windspeeds three hours earlier were 225 kmh (140mph).
Terrible though this storm was, it only ranks as a Category 4 storm, and it is clear nonsense to suggest that it is “one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall “
URL HERE
The only important and saddest thing about this storm was the tragic loss of human life but to say it was one of the strongest in history is plain wrong and typical of the hysterical over-reactionary reporting of populist media on most things climate nowadays.
-
Haiyan was a cat 5 super typhoon with windspeeds maxing 315km/h and 10 min sustatin of 230km/h, making it a cat 5 under any classification. In Australia (and sth Pacific) a cat 5 severe tropical cyclone is >239km/h sustain @ 1min and >209km/h sustain @ 10min. Not sure where you're getting your info or what there is to achieve by 'debunking' the claims :huh it has been downgraded on approach to Vietnam (though huge storm surges still expected) if that's what you're refering too. stuff news sites, I usually skip to the bottom on wiki pages to pick out the references. In this case the meteorology links. The Phillipino one linked was at 5am Friday morning and still shows as a cat 5. Your link to the Aussie cyclone extremes don't show any under 900hPa. Haiyan was 895hPa.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Haiyan_(2013)
Hate to link wikipedia itself but it has the definitions for categories by different meteorologies. Media probably getting caught up in semantics too http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
All you have to do then is use the references for the respective regions to get more info
-
Wiki is not an appropriate resource. Please re-post Dwaino with scholarly research
-
I keep trying tO post info that debunks the 'strongest storm" theory but it keeps telling me I am forbidden to access this server! :o
No conspiracy. It's an anti-spam measure by our host. IIRC the maximum is 3 links per post.
-
Wiki is not an appropriate resource. Please re-post Dwaino with scholarly research
I remember when my mate put his name in as the creator of Vegemite and it was there for over a month :lol
-
Getting some of my info from here Dwaino:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97255 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97255)
I tried to insert this link into my post above but kept getting an error message. Have a read of the article, in particular look at the 3 screen caps from the PMA that show the wind speeds as it made landfall in 3 different locations, where none of them was anywhere near the speed you quoted. Also, go to the bottom of the article to Update #6 and have a look at how the BBC corrects it's original wind speed reporting. According to the official Philippines Met Agency it was a Cat 4 when it crossed the land and that makes it just another powerful storm that sadly wreaked an inordinate amount of havoc, not one of the Top 5 powerful storms ever.
-
I keep trying tO post info that debunks the 'strongest storm" theory but it keeps telling me I am forbidden to access this server! :o
No conspiracy. It's an anti-spam measure by our host. IIRC the maximum is 3 links per post.
Lol OE, I didn't suspect a conspiracy but I'm happy to run with that if you like. ;D
I've posted the missing link separately in another post.
-
Also Dwaino, although the loss of life is tragic, even if the death toll were to reach 10,000 instead of the current ~2,000 it still wouldn't make the list of the world's Top 35 deadliest storms (not that that should be a measure of "powerful storm"). Look towards the bottom of this article for the table of data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/)
-
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/09/21362576-philippines-tallies-the-damage-after-most-powerful-storm-ever-kills-at-least-seven?lite"It is the most powerful storm ever to make landfall," Michael Palmer, lead meteorologist for The Weather Channel, told NBC News. "It is as strong a typhoon as you can get, basically," with winds able to "obliterate poorly constructed homes."
Pic from space and reasoning why so strong. Ie. Unusual forming. Ear equator
Typhoon Haiyan: how does it compare with other tropical cyclones?
http://theconversation.com/inside-typhoon-haiyan-and-a-year-of-weird-weather-20187
Typhoon Haiyan, described as the as the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history, hit the Philippines with winds of 195mph. How does it compare with other tropical cyclones?
Hitting the Philippines with winds of 195mph, typhoon Haiyan has been described as the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history.
The category five storm - which has also been called Yolanda in the Philippines - is reported to have had speeds at landfall of 195mph and gusts of up to 235mph, meaning that it is believed to be stronger than the world's last strongest tropical cyclone, hurricane Camille, which was recorded as making landfall in Mississippi with 190 mph winds in 1969
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-tropical-cyclones
-
Keep fighting the good fight smoke.
I'm sure it was just some rain.
Bloody left wing hippies trying to twist the facts.
A joint venture. Between the Australian greens and all gore with the solepurpose of wasting smokes valuable time having to debunk such nonsensical shyte :shh
-
NASA Earth Observatory chucked this up from CIMSS this morning.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/14311
lists windspeeds in knots even greater than media reported. Feel free to go through the JTWC (joint typhoon warning center, US Navy) logs referenced and I'll leave it to you to go convert the knots to km/h. Much of Haiyan was off scale hence the upper estimates. Take these windspeeds and square them, that's how you get the power. Some are saying after Haiyan a cat 6 needs to introduced. Haiyan had a small eye comapared to anything in recent times so inner windspeeds were massive. Also use the charts and look at the outflow.
Sorry can't take the site you quoted (whatsupwiththat? Lol) seriously at all. Skimmed through and read "It seems abundantly clear then that any claim trying to tie Typhoon Haiyan to a pattern of increased frequency of storms supposedly driven by “global warming” is patently false." I cann't take their data seriously now as it is obviously subjective.
Objective data only please. I'm not a climate change skeptic or supporter and I don't bat for a particular particular party.
-
It really doesnt matter if it was the strongest or biggest, it was one serious mother of a cylone, in intensity and size.
One of the claims of the effects of global warming is more extreme weather events, including more frequent and higher intensity cyclones.
This was a cyclone of high intensity and size, but on its own that means sweet FA. It will only be over time that the true picture will be painted.
-
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/09/21362576-philippines-tallies-the-damage-after-most-powerful-storm-ever-kills-at-least-seven?lite"It is the most powerful storm ever to make landfall," Michael Palmer, lead meteorologist for The Weather Channel, told NBC News. "It is as strong a typhoon as you can get, basically," with winds able to "obliterate poorly constructed homes."
Pic from space and reasoning why so strong. Ie. Unusual forming. Ear equator
Typhoon Haiyan: how does it compare with other tropical cyclones?
http://theconversation.com/inside-typhoon-haiyan-and-a-year-of-weird-weather-20187
Typhoon Haiyan, described as the as the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history, hit the Philippines with winds of 195mph. How does it compare with other tropical cyclones?
Hitting the Philippines with winds of 195mph, typhoon Haiyan has been described as the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history.
The category five storm - which has also been called Yolanda in the Philippines - is reported to have had speeds at landfall of 195mph and gusts of up to 235mph, meaning that it is believed to be stronger than the world's last strongest tropical cyclone, hurricane Camille, which was recorded as making landfall in Mississippi with 190 mph winds in 1969
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-tropical-cyclones
"It is the most powerful storm ever to make landfall," Michael Palmer, lead meteorologist for The Weather Channel"
Not in wind speed or damage so what does he base his statement on?
Your 2nd link backs up my point (As a typhoon, the winds around Haiyan reached a maximum sustained wind strength of 232 km/h on November 7.) and your 3rd link is quoting the same original figures as the BBC who later reprinted the correct (kmh instead of mph) value.
So what point are you arguing Bents?
-
Also Dwaino, although the loss of life is tragic, even if the death toll were to reach 10,000 instead of the current ~2,000 it still wouldn't make the list of the world's Top 35 deadliest storms (not that that should be a measure of "powerful storm"). Look towards the bottom of this article for the table of data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/)
I wouldn't trust WUWT for accurate info. This is the site where the guy that runs it was caught out taking solar activity data and manually putting the numbers in ascending order irrespective of what date they corresponded to and then tried claim this 'ascending' solar activity correlated with rising CO2 levels. He's also the guy who for a number of years was claiming meteorological equipment to measure surface temperature across the USA had a warming bias due to the equipment being near concrete walls etc. He was so sure about his conspiracy theory, he tested it out only to find there was actually a cooling bias lol. The science community thanked him for his contribution ;D. Unfortunately there's still anti-climate change idiots who to this day perpetuate this 'warming bias' myth to deny and discredit the science.
-
Hmmm, the 10 hottest days have all occurred since 1998.
Global heat headed for record
Date November 13, 2013 - 8:48PM Tom Arup
Global temperatures are almost half a degree Celsius above the long-term average so far in 2013, putting this year on course to be among the 10 hottest since records began, the world's leading meteorological agency says.
In a provisional statement on the global climate in 2013, the World Meteorological Organisation says the first nine months of this year tied with 2003 as the seventh hottest such period on record.
The statement was released in Warsaw on Wednesday where countries are meeting for the latest round of negotiations on a new treaty to tackle global warming.
In Australia, temperatures are on track for the hottest year on record. Australia's temperatures from January to October were 1.32 degrees above average, which annually is 21.8 degrees. The same period was 0.24 degrees above the next highest record – which occurred in 2005 – for January to October temperatures.
Dr Blair Trewin, senior climatologist at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said it would take significantly below-average temperatures in November and December for a record hot year not to occur across the nation.
The meteorological organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said all the warmest years across the planet had occurred since 1998, and 2013 once again continued the underlying long-term trend of warming.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-heat-headed-for-record-20131113-2xgxd.html#ixzz2kYNGlmBp
-
China to launch two new carbon trading exchanges
By David Stanway
Reuters BEIJING
Mon Nov 25, 2013
China will launch two new pilot carbon trading schemes this week in Beijing and Shanghai as it strives to cut soaring rates of greenhouse gas, reduce choking smog and determine the best system for a nationwide roll-out.
China, the world's biggest source of climate-changing carbon emissions, is under domestic pressure from its population to counter air pollution and has pledged to cut the 2005 rate of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP growth by 40-45 percent by 2020.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-china-carbon-idUSBRE9AO07E20131125
Whether people want to accept it or not the rest of the world is moving towards carbon pricing.
-
china is just stuffed pollution wise.
-
its snowing in cairo atm ...
-
Good work you right wing FSticks. Continue to worship your gods the oil companies :bow
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
-
just wondering..what would it take climate sceptics to change their mind on this issue.
I have sat on the fence on this for a while,but I just see the evidence as just too overwhelming to ignore now
-
Good work you right wing FSticks. Continue to worship your gods the oil companies :bow
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
Lol. You laugh at Anthony Watts and quote these morons. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Brulle
Is a moron?
I had not heard if him.
Please explain whybhes a moron for sense of mind
Or post a whats up with that link
-
http://www.drexel.edu/%7E/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx
That'sthe original paper. Look forward to bearing why moronic
-
just wondering..what would it take climate sceptics to change their mind on this issue.
I have sat on the fence on this for a while,but I just see the evidence as just too overwhelming to ignore now
Plenty are conservative christian types and will never change their minds since the bible tells them the Earth will be habitable as long as there is man to live on it.
Others are tin foil hat types who think secret shadow governments are out to get them or are simply just armchair professors. Basically, there are just some who cannot be persuaded.
-
If you think governments and and oil companies are kahots you are a tin foil hat wearer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
-
Brulle
Is a moron?
I had not heard if him.
Please explain whybhes a moron for sense of mind
Or post a whats up with that link
The Guardian are the morons Bents. A grade, 1st class, left wing propagandist morons who had no second thoughts about jeopardising Australian jobs and Australian security when it passed on national security information from a thief who was so strong about his beliefs that he fled to Russia for sanctuary and all for what purpose? Nothing except to undermine the security of nations he hated. They are the lowest of grubby vermin who have a direct parallel in history to the union garbage who contaminated and prevented supplies to our troops in various theatres of war. Moronic paper read and accepted as gospel by morons. Traitors to our country.
-
I gave you a link to the original paper.
Please explain why its wrong bro
Happy xmas
-
I gave you a link to the original paper.
Please explain why its wrong bro
Happy xmas
It's an opinion Bents, same as I can supply opinions from the other side of the fence. I refuse to accept that I must mortgage or bankrupt my country on a concept that science can't agree on and is not yet proven (in my opinion) to be valid. Climate change scare-mongering is making many smart entrepreneurs wealthy while the lemmings keep stepping forward. It's an oxymoron situation of sorts that the socialist and left wing who are usually the strongest in identifying and voicing against conspiracy can't see the potential or early evidence in this one.
-
I might be wrong but I thought if you tax pollution / mining your country would make money. Not lose it.
The crap in the ground isn't going anywhere. Untukk its dug up
-
I might be wrong but I thought if you tax pollution / mining your country would make money. Not lose it.
The crap in the ground isn't going anywhere. Untukk its dug up
Taxing anything produced in your own country, whether it's wages, resources or pollution can never be a 'profit' situation. The poor buggers that always end up paying (and they are the only ones who in the end tangibly pay) are the citizens. I hate our tax system and how our government (of any persuasion) keeps looking for ways to tax us further, and that is the single biggest thing I have against climate change scare-mongering. The big boys driving that push are making themselves obscenely wealthy from it and that wealth can only come from one place - our pockets.
-
No doubt the business of climate change has become just that..a business.
We live and work in a predominant capitalist society and we need to work within that to further advance protecting the world we live in.that may come from business/science innovation,or it may come from education,or even an awareness from business that long term its in their interests too.
This is what governments needs to nurture and encourage.
Taxation might work short term ,but long term all it does is stifle innovation,which is not something we want to see.
-
Who are these lefties that's are making billions from fear mongering you refer to? All gore? Its pennies compared to the big boys. If you don't like the newspaper read the original source provided
I might be wrong but I thought if you tax pollution / mining your country would make money. Not lose it.
The crap in the ground isn't going anywhere. Untukk its dug up
Taxing anything produced in your own country, whether it's wages, resources or pollution can never be a 'profit' situation. The poor buggers that always end up paying (and they are the only ones who in the end tangibly pay) are the citizens. I hate our tax system and how our government (of any persuasion) keeps looking for ways to tax us further, and that is the single biggest thing I have against climate change scare-mongering. The big boys driving that push are making themselves obscenely wealthy from it and that wealth can only come from one place - our pockets.
Ranking Company Industry Revenue (USD billions) FY Capitalization (USD billions) Employ Listing Headquarters CEO Ref(s)
1 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Retail $469 January 31, 2013 $248 2,200,000 NYSE: WMT United States Bentonville, Arkansas Doug McMillon [2]
2 Royal Dutch Shell Oil and gas $467 December 31, 2012 $132 90,000 LSE: RDSA Netherlands The Hague; United Kingdom London Peter Voser [3]
3 Exxon Mobil Corporation Oil and gas $453 December 31, 2012 $406 76,900 NYSE: XOM United States Irving, Texas Rex W. Tillerson [4]
4 China National Petroleum Corporation Oil and gas $425 December 31, 2012 1,668,072 - China Beijing Jiang Jiemin [5]
5 Sinopec Group Oil and gas $411 December 31, 2012 $81 401,000 NYSE: SNP China Beijing Su Shulin [6]
6 BP Oil and gas $370 December 31, 2012 $86 83,000 LSE: BP United Kingdom London Bob Dudley [7]
7 Saudi Aramco Oil and gas $365 2011 54,000 — Saudi Arabia Dhahran Khalid A. Al-Falih [8]
8 Vitol Commodities $303 January 10, 2013 2,800 - Netherlands Rotterdam; Switzerland Geneva Ian Taylor [9]
9 State Grid Corporation of China Electric utility $290 2012 1,564,000 — China Beijing Liu Zhenya [10]
10 Volkswagen Group Automotive $254 December 31, 2012 $77 502,000 ISIN: DE0007664005 Germany Wolfsburg Martin Winterkorn [11]
11 Chevron Oil and gas $242 December 31, 2012 $211 61,000 NYSE: CVX United States San Ramon, California John Watson [12]
12 Total Oil and gas $240 December 31, 2012 $120 111,000 Euronext: FP France Courbevoie Christophe de Margerie [13]
13 Toyota Automotive $222 March 31, 2013 $149 326,000 TYO: 7203; NYSE: TM Japan Toyota, Aichi Akio Toyoda [14]
14 Glencore Commodities $214 December 31, 2012 $41.66 58,000 LSE: GLEN; SEHK: 0805 Switzerland Baar Ivan Glasenberg [15]
15 Samsung Electronics Electronics $187 December 31, 2012 $181 222,000 KRX: 005930; KRX: 005935 South Korea Suwon Lee Kun-hee [16]
16 E.ON Electric utility $174 December 31, 2012 $47 79,000 FWB: EOAN Germany Düsseldorf Johannes Teyssen [17]
17 Apple Electronics $170 September 28, 2013 $410 76,000 NASDAQ: AAPL United States Cupertino, California Tim Cook [18]
18 Japan Post Holdings Conglomerate $168 March 31, 2013 229,000 — Japan Tokyo Jiro Saito [19]
19 Eni Oil and gas $167 December 31, 2012 $94 78,000 BIT: ENI Italy Rome Paolo Scaroni [20]
20 Phillips 66[ Oil and gas $166 December 31, 2012 $39 13,500 - United States Houston Greg Garland [21]
21 Gazprom Oil and gas $164 December 31, 2012 $145 432,000 MCX: GAZP Russia Moscow Alexei Miller [22]
This is a list of the world's largest public and private businesses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
-
No doubt the business of climate change has become just that..a business.
We live and work in a predominant capitalist society and we need to work within that to further advance protecting the world we live in.that may come from business/science innovation,or it may come from education,or even an awareness from business that long term its in their interests too.
This is what governments needs to nurture and encourage.
Taxation might work short term ,but long term all it does is stifle innovation,which is not something we want to see.
Disagree
The capitalism-consumer paradigm by its very nature is design in such a manner to rape the planet as fast as possible. Can no protect anything inside this framework. It was written before the industrial revolution and isn't apt for the world currenrly .
Critics of capitalism associate it with social inequality and unfair distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, counter-revolutionary wars and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; materialism; repression of workers and trade unionists; social alienation; economic inequality; unemployment; and economic instability. Individual property rights have also been associated with the tragedy of the anticommons.
Notable critics of capitalism have included: socialists, anarchists, communists, national socialists, social democrats, technocrats, some types of conservatives, Luddites, Narodniks, Shakers, and some types of nationalists.
Marxists have advocated a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism, before eventually transforming into communism. Many socialists consider capitalism to be irrational, in that production and the direction of the economy are unplanned, creating many inconsistencies and internal contradictions.[118] Labor historians and scholars such as Immanuel Wallerstein have argued that unfree labor — by slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations.[119]
Many aspects of capitalism have come under attack from the anti-globalization movement, which is primarily opposed to corporate capitalism. Environmentalists have argued that capitalism requires continual economic growth, and that it will inevitably deplete the finite natural resources of the Earth.[120]
Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism. Traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest,[121][122] although alternative methods of banking have been developed. Some Christians have criticized capitalism for its materialist aspects[123] and its inability to account for the wellbeing of all people. Many of Geez's parables deal with clearly economic concerns: farming, shepherding, being in debt, doing hard labor, being excluded from banquets and the houses of the rich, and have implications for wealth and power distribution.[124][125]
In his 84-page apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis described unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny" and called upon world leaders to fight rising poverty and inequality.[126] In it he says:
“ Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.[127] ”
Following the banking crisis of 2007, even those who strongly held the view that capitalism can organize itself were forced to reconsider. Alan Greenspan told the United States Congress on October 23, 2008, "The whole intellectual edifice collapsed. I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders. ... I was shocked."[128]
I'm with the pope
-
I'm not. That would be the same Pope who leads a church more wealthy than all those companies you listed that could do more than any other organisation in the world to alleviate world poverty with a single stroke of it's pen by divesting of all it's assets ? Mega-hypocrite.
-
new pope is alright - proof:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/23/pope-francis-diocese-germany/3169225/
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2013/10/14/conservative-catholics-question-pope-franciss-approach/21082
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445
(http://i.imgur.com/4P2ab.jpg)
he cant realistically sell Vatican city to wal-mart. you can sell it once, but then what (bit like Victorian assets)
the world already makes enough food to fed the world every day twice (i made that up, but at least once - proof in fact form - http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm)
politics, Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading aside if there is x amount of food and some people die due to zero amount of food would it not be dandy if everyone got some food?
. its not the popes fault people are starving to death
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmwdxwmZ5N1qz5gm9o1_500.jpg)
I'm not. That would be the same Pope who leads a church more wealthy than all those companies you listed that could do more than any other organisation in the world to alleviate world poverty with a single stroke of it's pen by divesting of all it's assets ? Mega-hypocrite.
Respectfully disagree with this.
The church is a 2000 year old institution that has held the west together over a vast expanse of known human recorded history. if you don't like it , it still require some form of respect. Without it human beings too stupid to form governments [europe] might have fallen into a never ending dark age? On a side note a very small amount of priests finger young boys -There is no story's on the many boring / good priest
-
From 2002 to 2011, the incidence of lung cancer in Beijing rose to 63 cases per 100,000, from 39.6, according to municipal health authorities. Nationwide in the last three decades, an era in which China opened up its economy and industrialized, deaths from lung cancer have risen 465%.
Increasingly, other Chinese physicians are reaching the same conclusion. At a time when cigarette smoking is on the decline in China, the nation is facing an explosion of lung cancer cases.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-china-lung-cancer-20131224,0,3058283.story#ixzz2oREirMYe
(http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/chinapollution_012513/bp1.jpg)
-
Link Bents?
Many aspects of capitalism have come under attack from the anti-globalization movement, which is primarily opposed to corporate capitalism. Environmentalists have argued that capitalism requires continual economic growth, and that it will inevitably deplete the finite natural resources of the Earth.[120]
The continual development of the latest technology should counter that. It's those in old and increasingly antiquated technology that oppose out of self-interest moving towards newer technology that are a threat to sustainable long-term economic growth.
Actual those that oppose Carbon pricing and trading are supporting a imbalance in the Capitalist system rather than supporting Capitalism. A capitalist system would support a market-based variable carbon pricing and trading scheme as it means it's no longer 'free' to emit man-made excess CO2 and you're instead attributing a financial value to something that affects/will affect the rest of the economy as a whole.
Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism. Traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest,[121][122]
Forbidding interest would see you lose money as money has a time value. A dollar today is worth less than a dollar a year ago. You need to charge at least "risk-free" interest just to stay even. The pricing and trading of stocks, derivatives, etc ... on the stockmarket relies on the existence of interest. It's a means to evaluate risk and return. Would you lend money at no interest to a unreliable debtor who has a 50/50 chance of defaulting :help and on top of that let that scenario be equal in risk value to lending to a reliable AAA debtor who always pays back their loans even though the latter scenario offers far less risk?
Anyway, this is for another topic. The study of global warming and climate change is not some means or conspiracy to end Capitalism.
-
Better yet, call it what some geologists are beginning to call it, the Anthropocene, or human epoch, a departure from the Earth’s operating system—the first in almost 12,000 years.
Whatever you call it, get used to it.
http:businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/polar-vortex-created-by-arctic-warming-north-american-cooling
-
If the temperature in Melbourne tomorrow hits 44 as predicted it will be the first time since records began that we will experience 4 days in a row above 41 degrees.
Where are the climate change sceptics now?
:banghead
-
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-16/australian-heatwaves-getting-hotter-and-longer/5202272
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
Still a denier?
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
While I can understand the logic behind this statement and at times part of me agrees I still believe that climate change is real.
The thing I notice now with the weather compared to when I was a kid is the changes in just certain things rather than the changes in what are labelled the "extremes".
Best example for me anyway is the winds. I really don't remember ever having the strong (gale force) winds we have here in Melbourne these days compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago. Yes we had the odd day of gale force winds when a change was coming but these days we have them regularly. In some cases weeks on end.
As for the last 4 days of 40+, it's happened before in other places just not in Melbourne but having said that I remember having 4-5 days straight of 35-39. So multiple days of heat isn't really anything new IMO
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/2013-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-for-australia/5183040
Jan 3, 2014 - Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
keep in mind the Bureau of Meteorology are a pack of left wing lunatics go i would take this information with a grain of salt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a more reputable website as opposed to http://www.bom.gov.au/
-
Where are the climate change sceptics now?
:banghead
At church.
-
97 out of 100 climate scientists believes climate change is real and caused my man.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
If 97 out of 100 doctors told you you had cancer, I dont think anybody would be prepared to gamble the odds. Theyd be seeking treatment.
But its easier to ignore issues outside of ones immediate self.
-
From Bryson A short history of nearlly everything
thomas Midgley Junior was an engineer by training and he developed an interest in the industrial applications of chemistry. With an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny, Midgley invented chlorofluorocarbons CFC that is eating up our ozone layer in the stratosphere.
Midgley also applied tetraethyl lead that spread devastation to human health by killing millions from lead contamination and increasing the lead content in our bones and blood 650 times the normal dose.
Tetraethyl lead was used to significantly reduce the “juddering” condition known as engine knock. GM, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint enterprise called Ethyl Gasoline Corporation with a view to making as much tetraethyl lead as the world was willing to buy this new gasoline and introduced this product in 1923.
Lead can be found in all manner of consumer products; food came in cans sealed with lead solder, water was stored in lead-lined tanks, and lead arsenate was sprayed onto fruit as a pesticide and even as part of the composition of toothpaste tubes.
However, lead lasting danger came as an additive to motor fuel.
Clair Patterson turned his attention to the question of all the lead in the atmosphere and that about 90% of it appeared to come from car exhaust pipes. He set about to comparing lead levels in the atmosphere now with the levels that existed before 1923.
His ingenious idea was to evaluate these levels from samples in the ice cores in places like Greenland. This notion became the foundation of ice cores studies, on which much modern climatological work is based.
Patterson found no lead in the atmosphere before 1923. Ethyl Corporation counter-attacked by cutting off all research grants that Patterson received. Although Patterson was the unquestionable America’s leading expert on atmospheric lead, the National Research Council panel excluded him in 1971.
Eventually, his efforts led to the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and to the removal from sale of all leaded petrol in the USA in 1986. Lead levels in the blood of the Americans fell by 80% almost within a year; but since the atmosphere contains so much lead and cannot be eliminated and is for ever, we are to live with a new constitution of heavy lead concentration in our blood stream and our bones.
Lead in paint was also banned in 1993, 44 years after Europe has banned it. Leaded gasoline is still being sold overseas. Ironically, all the research on lead effects on health were funded by the Ethyl Corporation; one doctor spent 5 years taking samples of urine and faces instead of blood and bones where lead accumulate.
Refrigerators in the 1920s used dangerous gases and leaks killed more than a hundred in 1929 in a Cleveland hospital. Thomas Midgley came to the rescue with a safe, stable, non-corrosive, and non-flammable gas called CFC.
A single kilo of chlorofluorocarbon can capture and annihilate 70,000 kilo of atmospheric ozone, which is no thicker than 2 millimeter around the stratosphere and whose benefit is to capture the dangerous cosmic rays.
CFC is also a great heat sponge 10,000 times more efficient than carbon dioxide responsible for the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature.
CFC was banned in 1974 in the USA but 27 million kilo a year are still being introduced in the market in other forms of deodorant or hairspray for example. CFC will not be banned in the third world countries until 2010.
The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be 280 parts per million but it has increased to 360 and is roughly rising 0.025% a year and might be around 560 by the end of the century.
The seas soak up tremendous volumes of carbon and safely locked it away. Since the Sun is burning 25% more brightly than when the solar system was young, what keeps our Earth stable and cool?
It seems that there are trillions upon trillions of tiny marine organisms that capture carbon from the rain falls and use it to make tiny shells. These marine organisms lock the carbon and prevent it from re-evaporating into the atmosphere; otherwise, the greenhouse effect of warming the atmosphere would have done much damage long time ago. These tiny organisms fall to the bottom of the sea after they die, where they are compressed into limestone.
Volcanoes and the decay of plants return the carbon to the atmosphere at a rate of 200 billion tones a year and fall to the Earth in rain. The cycle takes 500,000 years for a typical carbon atom. Fortunately that most of the rain fall in oceans because 60% of the rain that fall on land is evaporated within a couple of days.
Human has disturbed this cycle after the heavy industrialization era and is lofting about 7 billion tones each year.
There is a critical threshold where the natural biosphere stops buffering us from the effects of our emissions and actually starts to amplify them.
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
Still a denier?
never was a denier, not even close
just irks me to see supposedly intelligent people sinking to the depths of morons like Bolt, who grasp at the smallest thing that proves nothing, in a vain attempt to back their own stance. All they do is actually harm the argument they are trying to put forward.
learn the difference between climate and weather, i would suggest.
If you listen to those supposedly in know, they say that the trend will be to more extreme weather conditions more often. One weather event on its own does not prove this, EITHER WAY!!!!
Just like when weather conditions return to a more average or "normal" cycle and Bolt and his idiotic cronies start spouting how it proves there is no climate change......
-
What do you make of the hottest year on Australian record?
A 365 day weather event
-
single weather events do not prove anything about climate change, one way or the other
Still a denier?
never was a denier, not even close
just irks me to see supposedly intelligent people sinking to the depths of morons like Bolt, who grasp at the smallest thing that proves nothing, in a vain attempt to back their own stance. All they do is actually harm the argument they are trying to put forward.
learn the difference between climate and weather, i would suggest.
If you listen to those supposedly in know, they say that the trend will be to more extreme weather conditions more often. One weather event on its own does not prove this, EITHER WAY!!!!
Just like when weather conditions return to a more average or "normal" cycle and Bolt and his idiotic cronies start spouting how it proves there is no climate change......
Well said Al. Way too much posturing from both sides trying to convince each time something happens. Its becoming like the reporting on the stock exchange - today the stockmarket fell(oh no, we're stuffed) tomorrow stock is up(hmm things on the up). Morons
-
What do you make of the hottest year on Australian record?
A 365 day weather event
how long have records been kept? now compare that to how old the earth is.
If you really think one weather event, over one or a few days, proves anything, (either way), then you are no better that someone like Bolt. The only difference is you have opposing views.
-
Last question
: the ozone-depleting effects of CFCs in the atmosphere
lead into the atmosphere as a result of the large-scale combustion of leaded gasoline
What is you position this on the climate on the planet of earth
The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. I would assume Australia n records started sometime after white people arrived,
-
In the grand scheme of hundreds of millions of years, how much stock can you take of the past 10-20-30 years?
Remember when we had a 10 year drought and were told by Peter Beatie, Rudd et al to "buck up, this is the normal cycle of weather now - no rainis our new weather pattern". Then our reservoirs get deluged for 3 years straight. Guess what? we'll go through another severe drought at some stage and have an above normal year of storms. Its called nature and its unpredictable.
I keep hearing snow caps are melting, etc then a ship gets bogged down in Antarctica in thick ice and then the reason we're given is not the cold but bc of global warming and mixing freshwater and salt water caused more ice to form or something along those lines. Just so sick of the obvious agendas
-
Last question
: the ozone-depleting effects of CFCs in the atmosphere
lead into the atmosphere as a result of the large-scale combustion of leaded gasoline
What is you position this on the climate on the planet of earth
-
Last question
: the ozone-depleting effects of CFCs in the atmosphere
lead into the atmosphere as a result of the large-scale combustion of leaded gasoline
What is you position this on the climate on the planet of earth
I thought I heard somewhere that the hole in the ozone layer was getting smaller? I might be wrong so i'll look it up
-
What do you make of the hottest year on Australian record?
A 365 day weather event
Solar flares, targeted specifically at our country by the sun :lol
Ps - and theres no proof smoking causes cancer
-
Just so sick of the obvious agendas
Generally... the people that are invested in oil compaines also have control of the media...
Strategic Advisory Board
The Strategic Advisory Board of Genie Oil and Gas advises management on strategic, financial, operational and public policy matters.
Shelley Berkley
Former Member of Congress and member of House Committee on Ways and Means.
Alan K. Burnham, PhD
Chief Technology Officer, American Shale Oil, LLC. Formerly research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Jim Courter
Vice Chairman and formerly CEO of IDT Corporation, Chairman of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, and Member of Congress
Kevin P. Kauffman
Founder, Chairman, CEO and President of K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc., a leading independent oil and gas exploration and production Company operating in the Rocky Mountain states.
Rupert Murdoch
Founder, Chairman of the Board, and CEO of News Corporation
Wes Perry
Member of the Board of Directors, Genie Energy. Founder and CEO of E.G.L. Resources, an energy exploration and development company
Eugene A. Renna
Former President and Chief Operating Officer of Mobil Corporation and Sr. Vice President, Exxon Mobil
Jacob Rothschild, OM, GBE
Chairman of the J. Rothschild group of companies and of RIT Capital Partners plc (RITCP). Chairman of Five Arrows Limited. Noted philanthropist and Chairman of the Rothschild Foundation
Allan Sass, PhD
Former President and CEO of Occidental Oil Shale, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum
Michael Steinhardt
Principal Manager, Steinhardt Management LLC. Founder Steinhardt, Fine, Berkowitz & Co., and noted philanthropist
Harold Vinegar, PhD
Chief Technology Officer of IEI. Adjunct Professor, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Formerly Chief Scientist – Royal Dutch Shell
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/israel-grants-oil-rights-in-syria-to-murdoch-and-rothschild/
http://www.idt.net/about/press/story.aspx?id=41777
http://genie.com/about-us/management/
http://genieoilgas.com/about-us/strategic-advisory-board/
who do you think is writing the agenda? the hippies and the green party? :huh
-
As al mentioned - both sides. Just feel there is too much poo from both sides which muddies the waters -
-
As al mentioned - both sides. Just feel there is too much poo from both sides which muddies the waters -
Agreed Tony. Don't believe half of what Judge posts and don't believe half the crap that comes out of the media.
I could take a space image of earth, draw a black circle around a spot and say its a hole in the Ozone layer. ::)
Remember, while we are burning up here, on the other side of the world they are freezing their little titties off in some of the coldest weather in decades.. Go figure
-
Holocaust mk2
Yet if all of India china want western lives we ate indeed stuffed
-
I wonder when the Libs will come to their senses?
John Kerry calls climate change 'weapon of mass destruction
United States secretary of state John Kerry has warned Indonesians that climate change could threaten their "entire way of life" as he called for all nations to do more to stop global warming.
Speaking to students in Jakarta, Mr Kerry warned them that man-made climate change could threaten their entire way of life, deriding those who doubted the existence of "perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction".
Aides say Mr Kerry had chosen Indonesia for the first of what is to be a series of speeches on the topic this year, partly because as an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands, it is particularly at risk from rising sea levels.
"Because of climate change, it's no secret that today Indonesia is ... one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth," Mr Kerry said in a speech at a high-tech US-funded cultural centre at a Jakarta mall.
"It's not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk."
In the middle of a trip to Asia and the Middle East, Mr Kerry argued that it made no sense for some nations to act to stem climate change while others did nothing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/an-climate-change-threatens-indonesians27-way-of-life3a-us-se/5263344
-
what a goose using terms such as weapon of mass destruction.
as we all know, that term was the backbone of a war based on lies.
-
How much Scheiße does america put into the air vs the 'Indon'
-
are you referring to industry, or politicians speaking?
-
chloroflurocarbons,
-
what a goose using terms such as weapon of mass destruction.
as we all know, that term was the backbone of a war based on lies.
X2 pathetic
-
Oh Dear...
:lol
Clive Palmer says 'hopeless' Direct Action plan 'dead' without PUP support
April 21, 2014 - 6:27PM
Clive Palmer has declared the Abbott government's Direct Action policy is "dead", saying his Palmer United Party will use its numbers in the Senate to block the Coalition's policy to replace the carbon tax.
Mr Palmer said on Monday the controversial policy, which aims to reduce emissions largely through payments to businesses, was “hopeless” and would be "gone" if his party, Labor and the Greens all vote against it, as they have previously indicated.
“It’s goodbye Direct Action,” Mr Palmer told Fairfax Media.
“It’s gone.”
Mr Palmer had said earlier in the day he would not support Direct Action if the Abbott government made any changes to the pension, in light of growing speculation that there are plans to raise the pension age to 70 and tighten eligibility requirements.
But on Monday afternoon Mr Palmer went a step further and said there would not be any circumstance in which his party would vote for Direct Action.
The government plans to spend up to $1.55 billion over the next three years on the scheme, but several senior economists have questioned whether Direct Action can meet its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020 with that budget.
Mr Palmer said the policy did not make economic sense and questioned whether it would have any environmental effect.
“We can’t see any reason to vote for Direct Action,” Mr Palmer said.
“We think it’s hopeless.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-says-hopeless-direct-action-plan-dead-without-pup-support-20140421-zqxee.html#ixzz2zVrCYAZg
-
WTF :huh
QCoal's James Mackay developing environmental policy for Newman Government in Queensland
By the National Reporting Team's Mark Solomons and Mark Willacy
The head of corporate affairs for a mining company at the centre of an environmental dispute has been in charge of developing policy on the environment for Queensland's ruling Liberal National Party (LNP) since 2012.
James Mackay also worked full-time for the LNP during the 2012 election, while he was being paid $10,000 a month by the company, QCoal.
QCoal is embroiled in controversy over plans to divert Coral Creek in north Queensland to mine the coal underneath.
-
Hottest May
-
THE Obama administration today plans to make public the first rules limiting carbon emissions from the thousands of power plants.
The pollution controls form the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's campaign to combat climate change and a key element of his legacy.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/president-barack-obama-to-announce-rules-on-limiting-carbon-emissions/story-e6frfm30-1226939857328
I'll wait to see what is actually set-up over the next two years in the States but nevertheless so much for Australia acting alone and other countries doing nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. The world is moving towards global carbon pricing whether our Government wants to believe it or not.
-
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2258.html
ARTICLE PREVIEW
view full access options
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE |
Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model
The intensification of precipitation extremes with climate change1 is of key importance to society as a result of the large impact through flooding. Observations show that heavy rainfall is increasing on daily timescales in many regions2, but how changes will manifest themselves on sub-daily timescales remains highly uncertain. Here we perform the first climate change experiments with a very high resolution (1.5 km grid spacing) model more typically used for weather forecasting, in this instance for a region of the UK. The model simulates realistic hourly rainfall characteristics, including extremes3, 4, unlike coarser resolution climate models5, 6, giving us confidence in its ability to project future changes at this timescale. We find the 1.5 km model shows increases in hourly rainfall intensities in winter, consistent with projections from a coarser 12 km resolution model and previous studies at the daily timescale7. However, the 1.5 km model also shows a future intensification of short-duration rain in summer, with significantly more events exceeding the high thresholds indicative of serious flash flooding. We conclude that accurate representation of the local storm dynamics is an essential requirement for predicting changes to convective extremes; when included we find for the model here that summer downpours intensify with warming.
At a glance
Figures
First | 1-4 of 4 | Last
left
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
right
References• Author information• Supplementary information
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M. & Parsons, D. B. The changing character of precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 1205–1217 (2003).
ADSISIArticle
Min, S-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Hegerl, G. C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470, 376–379 (2011).
CASADSArticle
Kendon, E. J., Roberts, N. M., Senior, C. A. & Roberts, M. J. Realism of rainfall in a very high resolution regional climate model. J. Clim. 25, 5791–5806 (2012).
Article
Chan, S. C. et al. The value of high-resolution Met Office regional climate models in the simulation of multi-hourly precipitation extremes. J. Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00723.1 (in the press).
Hanel, M. & Buishand, T. A. On the value of hourly precipitation extremes in regional climate model simulations. J. Hydrol. 393, 265–273 (2010).
Article
Gregersen, I. B. et al. Assessing future climatic changes of rainfall extremes at small spatio-temporal scales. Climatic Change 118, 783–797 (2013).
Article
Fowler, H. J. & Ekström, M. Multi-model ensemble estimates of climate change impacts on UK seasonal precipitation extremes. Int. J. Climatol. 29, 385–416 (2009).
Article
Lenderink, G. & van Meijgaard, E. Increase in hourly precipitation extremes beyond expectations from temperature changes. Nature Geosci. 1, 511–514 (2008).
CASADSISIArticle
Burt, S. Cloudburst upon Hendraburnick Down: The Boscastle storm of 16 August 2004. Weather 60, 219–227 (2005).
ADSArticle
Berg, P., Moseley, C. & Haerter, J. O. Strong increase in convective precipitation in response to higher temperatures. Nature Geosci. 6, 181–185 (2013).
CASADSArticle
Brockhaus, P., Lüthi, D. & Schär, C. Aspects of the diurnal cycle in a regional climate model. Meteorol. Z. 17, 433–443 (2008).
Article
Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P. & Schär, C. Towards climate simulations at cloud-resolving scales. Meteorol. Z. 17, 383–394 (2008).
Article
Lean, H. W. et al. Characteristics of high-resolution versions of the Met Office Unified Model for forecasting convection over the United Kingdom. Mon. Weath. Rev. 136, 3408–3424 (2008).
ADSArticle
Langhans, W., Schmidli, J., Fuhrer, O., Bieri, S. & Schär, C. Long-term simulations of thermally driven flows and orographic convection at convection-parameterizing and cloud-resolving resolutions. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 52, 1490–1510 (2013).
Article
Prein, A. F. et al. Added value of convection permitting seasonal simulations. Clim. Dynam. 41, 2655–2677 (2013).
ADSArticle
Mahoney, K., Alexander, M., Scott, J. D. & Barsugli, J. High-resolution downscaled simulations of warm-season extreme precipitation events in the Colorado Front Range under past and future climates. J. Clim. 26, 8671–8689 (2013).
Article
Attema, J. J., Loriaux, J. M. & Lenderink, G. Extreme precipitation response to climate perturbations in an atmospheric mesoscale model. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 014003 (2014).
ADSArticle
Wakazuki, Y., Nakamura, M., Kanada, S. & Muroi, C. Climatological reproducibility evaluation and future climate projection of extreme precipitation events in the Baiu Season using a high-resolution non-hydrostatic RCM in comparison with an AGCM. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn 86, 951–967 (2008).
Article
Knote, C., Heinemann, G. & Rockel, B. Changes in weather extremes: Assessment of return values using high resolution climate simulations at convection-resolving scale. Meteorol. Z. 19, 11–23 (2010).
Article
Trapp, R. J., Robinson, E. D., Baldwin, M. E., Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Schwedler, B. R. J. Regional climate of hazardous convective weather through high-resolution dynamical downscaling. Clim. Dynam. 37, 677–688 (2011).
ADSArticle
Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., Bretherton, C. S. & Schär, C. The soil moisture-precipitation feedback in simulations with explicit and parameterized convection. J. Clim. 22, 5003–5020 (2009).
ISIArticle
Pan, L-L. et al. Influences of climate change on California and Nevada regions revealed by a high-resolution dynamical downscaling study. Clim. Dynam. 37, 2005–2020 (2011).
Article
Golding, B. W. Nimrod: A system for generating automated very short range forecasts. Meteorol. Appl. 5, 1–16 (1998).
ADSArticle
Harrison, D. L., Driscoll, S. J. & Kitchen, M. Improving precipitation estimates from weather radar using quality control and correction techniques. Meteorol. Appl. 7, 135–144 (2000).
ADSArticle
Walters, D. N. et al. The Met Office Unified Model global atmosphere 3.0/3.1 and JULES global land 3.0/3.1 configurations. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 919–941 (2011).
ADSArticle
Wilkinson, J. M. et al. Improved microphysical parametrization of drizzle and fog for operational forecasting using the Met Office Unifed Model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 139, 488–500 (2013).
Article
Li, D. & Shine, K. P. A 4-dimensional Ozone Climatology for UGAMP Models. Technical Report 35 (UGAMP 1995)
Collins, W. J. et al. Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model—HadGEM2. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 1051–1075 (2011).
Article
Bower, K. N. & Choularton, T. W. A parametrisation of the effective radius of ice free clouds for use in global climate models. Atmos. Res. 27, 305–339 (1992).
Article
Best, M. J. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description—Part 1: Energy and water fluxes. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 595–640 (2011).
Article
-
THE Obama administration today plans to make public the first rules limiting carbon emissions from the thousands of power plants.
The pollution controls form the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's campaign to combat climate change and a key element of his legacy.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/president-barack-obama-to-announce-rules-on-limiting-carbon-emissions/story-e6frfm30-1226939857328
I'll wait to see what is actually set-up over the next two years in the States but nevertheless so much for Australia acting alone and other countries doing nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. The world is moving towards global carbon pricing whether our Government wants to believe it or not.
Carbon will be worth more than gold. I don't agree with pricing it but as long as the money is put towards the research and development of renewable energy then I'm all for it.
-
THE Obama administration today plans to make public the first rules limiting carbon emissions from the thousands of power plants.
The pollution controls form the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's campaign to combat climate change and a key element of his legacy.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/president-barack-obama-to-announce-rules-on-limiting-carbon-emissions/story-e6frfm30-1226939857328
I'll wait to see what is actually set-up over the next two years in the States but nevertheless so much for Australia acting alone and other countries doing nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. The world is moving towards global carbon pricing whether our Government wants to believe it or not.
Carbon will be worth more than gold. I don't agree with pricing it but as long as the money is put towards the research and development of renewable energy then I'm all for it.
Says a man who doesn't go outside because the graphics suck. ;D
-
;D Too many noobs IRL too.
But seriously, carbon tax and ETS is fine as a way to raise revenue for development of clean and renewable energy, otherwise it's just something else for the filthy rich to exploit.
-
Real conservationists understand that addressing overpopulation is the only real solution - unless we do that, everything else is just useless feelgood crap and kicking shyte up a hill.
-
Real conservationists understand that addressing overpopulation is the only real solution - unless we do that, everything else is just useless feelgood crap and kicking shyte up a hill.
I like this idea.
Are we talking WW3 or The Black Death?
:lol
-
''In contrast to the fabulously rich, the enormously poor make little useful contribution to society,'' wrote Mr Ralph, a long-time Liberal Party campaign strategist.
Advertisement
''They consume more than they contribute, putting tremendous strain on the national budget.
''A modest cull would strike at the root of our fiscal dilemma. If the least productive 20 per cent of citizens were decommissioned it would directly release a recurrent $25 billion, which would almost cover overspending by the Gillard government between now and September 14th, assuming Mr Swan maintains his long-term average rate of profligacy.Kill the world a poorest 20%
-
Real conservationists understand that addressing overpopulation is the only real solution - unless we do that, everything else is just useless feelgood crap and kicking shyte up a hill.
This actually is the issue. Forests have always been the Earth's natural CO2 scrubbers and carbon levels rock from around 200ppm (most trees suffocate around 50ppm) to around 2000ppm. Currently around 800ppm. Over population has lead to massive deforestation, and the demand for resources is releasing even more greenhouse gas that was trapped under the Earth.
If things get too drastic we could always just pump sulfate aerosol into the atmosohere for a decade. Otherwise we can just wait until a combination of anti-biotic resistant super bugs and the come back of nasty viruses due to paranoid, new age anti-vaxxers to make a come back and serve mankind a well deserved and overdue culling.
-
THE Obama administration today plans to make public the first rules limiting carbon emissions from the thousands of power plants.
The pollution controls form the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's campaign to combat climate change and a key element of his legacy.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/president-barack-obama-to-announce-rules-on-limiting-carbon-emissions/story-e6frfm30-1226939857328
I'll wait to see what is actually set-up over the next two years in the States but nevertheless so much for Australia acting alone and other countries doing nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. The world is moving towards global carbon pricing whether our Government wants to believe it or not.
Carbon will be worth more than gold. I don't agree with pricing it but as long as the money is put towards the research and development of renewable energy then I'm all for it.
The value of a market price (as opposed to a fixed carbon price) will obviously depend on supply and demand depend on how industry and society moves to a less carbon intensive economy. The ETS will be a cap and trade system meaning there'll be a cap on the amount of collective CO2 produced (which will be lowered over time to bring down total emissions) and emitters will be required to buy/trade for permits to emit. If we reduce emissions faster than the cap then there will be a over-supply of permits and the cost of them will stay low; on the other hand if emitters struggle to collectively meet the cap then the cost of permits will rise and eventually it'll be cheaper to invest in and switch to alternative renewable energies rather than trade to buy more permits.
-
I know that's how they're meant to work, but without just sounding cynical I can see ETS permits being exploited since they can be traded. There will only ever be a set amount of permits due to the cap so if someone buys up more than they need they can then on sell them for a cost that they choose. I can't speak for the USA but if Australia were serious we would go nuclear in the mean time for major cities, with solar and wind/hydro in other regions, while the countries serious about investing in clean and renewable energy come up with the solution. There are still way too many people, including the government, getting rich from fossil fuels.
-
Real conservationists understand that addressing overpopulation is the only real solution - unless we do that, everything else is just useless feelgood crap and kicking shyte up a hill.
This is true, but.......
The back bone of capitalist economies is growth. For economic growth, you need population growth.
Even China realises this, which is why they have just changed their one child policy.
-
Can you explain how this is the case?
I understand capitalism was written pre industrialrrevolution. But this still seems bizarre
-
quite simple. for economic growth you need population growth.
population growth creates growth in demand for goods and services.
no population growth means things stagnate at best, or go backwards as the current population ages.
-
Sounds very silly to me.
Doesn't take into consideration - for example oil is a finite not infinite resource
Hence More people = more demand = more economic growth.. What about when there is no more oil? (Or fish or trees or whatever)
Yet we live in a state where we sell assets for short term profit regardless of then no longer having the asset and then being screwed. And a world where it's not seen as odd for one man to have 125 billion dollars and another nothing so it does not surprise me.
Yet from a theoretical sense the consumer-capitalist paradigm to me seems flawed.
-
The oil will run out whether there is growth or not. Cuba have already shown that you can survive with minimal oil as they had to adapt when the soviet union collapsed and their oil supply ( as well as fertiliser) supply disappeared.
Of course though, they dont have the constraints of capitalism driving their decision making .
Im not defending the system, or saying it is good, just how it is.
as long as the emphasis is on economic growth, you need population growth, which is why i refer to it as a pyramid system. eventually it will fail, and not just for this reason.
as an example, if the population remained stagnant, you would soon have little need to build new buildings. There goes not just a whole industry, but one that is a major driver of the economy. Its why many economists put a importance on new housing approvals as an indicator of how the economy is travelling.
The capitalist system isn't something that is planned. no one sat down and wrote a book on how it would work, it has evolved over time, in what has been very much a trial and error caper.
-
My mistake I was using the 16th-18th century as a starting point but upon further reading it seems to have a more Loose starting point.
-
Yeah, probably a few thousand years before JC played full back for Jerusalem, when money first came into being.
-
Source
-
(http://wiseowl.id.au/images/JCFullBack.jpg)
-
:lol :thatsgold
-
THE CSIRO may have discovered a process that may end the reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
Dubbing it a game-changer that was on a level with the breaking of the sound barrier, the organisation said it had used solar energy to generate hot and pressurised supercritical steam at the highest temperatures ever achieved outside of fossil fuel sources.
The organisation said the breakthrough was just the first step and it was now a matter of proving the process could work in a commercial application.
The breakthrough was made at the CSIRO Energy Centre, Newcastle, where two solar thermal test plants featuring more than 600 mirrors are directed at two towers housing solar receivers and turbines.
http://www.news.com.au/national/csiro-claims-gamechanging-solar-discovery-could-end-reliance-on-fossil-fuels/story-e6frfkp9-1226943557823
-
(http://wiseowl.id.au/images/JCFullBack.jpg)
Injuries "crucifixion
-
THE CSIRO may have discovered a process that may end the reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
Dubbing it a game-changer that was on a level with the breaking of the sound barrier, the organisation said it had used solar energy to generate hot and pressurised supercritical steam at the highest temperatures ever achieved outside of fossil fuel sources.
The organisation said the breakthrough was just the first step and it was now a matter of proving the process could work in a commercial application.
The breakthrough was made at the CSIRO Energy Centre, Newcastle, where two solar thermal test plants featuring more than 600 mirrors are directed at two towers housing solar receivers and turbines.
http://www.news.com.au/national/csiro-claims-gamechanging-solar-discovery-could-end-reliance-on-fossil-fuels/story-e6frfkp9-1226943557823
I'm sure the science minister will get right on to this with some funding... oh wait.
-
Finally Abbott might have a reason to get serious on climate change.
:lol
US ties at risk over climate
June 7, 2014
Peter Hannam
Australia risks seriously damaging its international reputation and being isolated in the global debate on climate change unless it rethinks its inaction on greenhouse gases, international experts have warned.
And a top adviser to the Obama administration on climate change said Australia could jeopardise its relationship with the United States if the Abbott government fails to fall into line on climate policy.
''I think everyone except the climate deniers is deeply concerned with the direction [Australia] is going,'' Heather Zichal, the White House's chief climate adviser until last November, told Fairfax Media.
A new report released ahead of a meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Tony Abbott next Friday found Australia's commitment to addressing climate change had slipped behind other countries, including China and Indonesia.
''The implication from US policy for Australia is that we have stepped up to the table with solid solutions to this global challenge. Is Australia going to join President Obama in making progress or stand on the sidelines?'' Ms Zichal said.
The concern over Australia's stance came as the leaders of the Group of Seven major economies expressed their ''strong determination'' to adopt a global climate treaty that was ''ambitious, inclusive and reflects changing global circumstances'' at a summit in Paris next year.
It also coincides with China, the world's biggest emitter, confirming its intentions to limit emissions for the first time. ''We will try our utmost to peak as early as possible,'' said Xie Zhenhua, China's chief climate envoy.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-ties-at-risk-over-climate-20140606-39omo.html#ixzz33tNHkY32
-
FFS even Americans think he's an idiot. :banghead
-
the americans are the biggest dills in the world who gives a poo what they say ;D
-
Massive correlation between religious numpties and climate change skeptics.
-
Do the yanks have a carbon tax or ets?
-
They're looking at capping so will be ETS.
-
sweet, when they actually implement it, I'll respect their opinions a bit more, until then they are just a bunch of hypocrites on the issue.
-
I'm more concerned some will buy more permits than they need then sell them off or just use it as a strategy to make it hard for their competitors. In principle I agree and think it's great they want to cap it, but it's those who will be buying the permits I'm worried about.
-
I have no doubt your concerns will be realised. Greed will play a major role as the world eventually evolves to incorporate new laws on climate change.
-
Sure that Tony asked India to join his merry band of climate change deniers and they're not keen on taxing or capping carbon yet, at least they're doing something constructive instead
http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/government-and-policy/now-gujarat-to-cover-narmada-canals-with-solar-panels/article3346191.ece/?maneref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindubusinessline.com%2Findustry-and-economy%2Fgovernment-and-policy%2Farticle3346191.ece
-
Germany power production is now 50% solar. Chuck that on top of their considerable generation from wind turbines and this industrial powerhouse is the cleanest in the world.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar
-
Lefty limp
-
Further to the Germans, some interesting reading below. Their renewable energy is leading the way and good on them for working towards their goals but with that territory come problems, now they are reliant on lignite which emits a lot more co2 and as a result emmissions in Germany are up for the first time in 20 years.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25411-german-energy-crisis-points-towards-climate-solution.html?full=true#.U6o25RvlodU (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25411-german-energy-crisis-points-towards-climate-solution.html?full=true#.U6o25RvlodU)
-
They spent a lot of money on rebates and investments on clean so you will find they start selling coal and power to neighbours. That article is also based off old stats when they were only generating a quarter of their power from renewables. Their reliance on coal has dropped by 25% but you can be certain they will keep producing it anyway because they can sell it. Australia could massively stimulate the economy by fitting every single house with solar (rebates, compulsory for new buildings, anyway you care to think of) but never will because we can't sell our surplus being isolated by sea. Not to mention our governments hang off the t@s of the mining pigs.
-
Read the last line. That is the Libs real agenda.
$13.4 billion in savings but the cost born by the nations poorest.
:banghead
Families lose up to $3500 a year in end of mine, carbon taxes
July 5, 2014
Mark Kenny
Chief political correspondent
EXCLUSIVE
Projected annual savings in electricity costs of $550 per household from scrapping the carbon tax may be dwarfed by the withdrawal of up to $3500 per household in other government payments linked to it and the mining tax, according to new research.
The Australian Institute modelling, based on a low-income family with two working adults and three school-age children, has concluded the withdrawal of several payments and offsets associated with the clean energy package and others notionally funded by the Minerals Resource Rent Tax will take away more money than will be saved after the carbon tax is repealed.
The government has convened a two-week session of the Senate from Monday with the prime purpose of repealing Labor's two most unpopular and politically costly taxes, the carbon and mining taxes.
Both repeals were clear Coalition promises before the election but have been blocked in the Labor-Greens dominated Senate.
But with the new Senate, the government believes it has the numbers to dump both taxes and a raft of measures associated with them.
The original version of the mining tax was projected at one point to have been capable of raising up to $12 billion before a series of changes negotiated under extreme political duress resulted in a truncated version, which has raised almost nothing.
So poorly has the tax performed in revenue terms that the Coalition has claimed its repeal, along with the spending programs supposedly funded by it, such as the School Kids Bonus, would actually save the country $13.4 billion.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/families-lose-up-to-3500-a-year-in-end-of-mine-carbon-taxes-20140704-3bdvu.html#ixzz36WuWPHQQ
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28898223
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
-
The vents in the Gulf of Mexico and off the east coast of the USA have been under observation for a while, the latest threat is the gasses trapped under ice in Greenland and Iceland. The recent sinkholes appearing in the Arctic circle in Russia have been due to retreating permafrost, releasing tons of potent greenhouse gasses.
Of course the skeptics/christians will blame these events as the cause for global warming, but not what has caused their exposure.
-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163
The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000).
bstract
December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Nińo Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.
-
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/dont-trust-bureau-of-meteorology-says-abbotts-business-advisor-54948
Waiting for the ISIS analogy
-
Tony business adviser sounds like a Non violent conspiracy theorist to me - in the words of David Cameron Tony = Isis? To say the bom is changing the numbers = waankers
Climate change denialism conspiracy theories - seems to also be a faith of sorts too Tony, Morrison and fellow wankers Italy has scientists non jail for failing to predict earthquakes. Looking forward to Australia putting some nerds behind bars too.
-
"Having put all our eggs in one basket and having made science a religion, it bravely persists with its global warming narrative, ignoring at its peril and ours, the clear warnings being given by Mother Nature.”
Lol. Science is a method. It is asking a question or creating a hypothesis. Then it is usings methods to produce tangible results time again. Scientific method is never wrong, neither are the outcomes.
Religion is faith. Faith is the irrational belief in something with total disregard to evidence. Those of faith are also incapable of reason and rational debate which is why those sorts should be just ignored and prohibited from positions of influence such as politics and public education.
-
Lol. Science is a method. It is asking a question or creating a hypothesis. Then it is usings methods to produce tangible results time again. Scientific method is never wrong, neither are the outcomes.
Religion is faith. Faith is the irrational belief in something with total disregard to evidence. Those of faith are also incapable of reason and rational debate which is why those sorts should be just ignored and prohibited from positions of influence such as politics and public education.
LMAO
:lol
-
How can science be wrong? Knuckle dragger :cheers
If the hypothesis you started out with proves to be incorrect, like '65 has an opinion that isn't copy and pasted from the Age, then the science wasn't wrong. It just proves with tangible evidence that it is factually untrue.
-
How can science be wrong? Knuckle dragger :cheers
If the hypothesis you started out with proves to be incorrect, like '65 has an opinion that isn't copy and pasted from the Age, then the science wasn't wrong. It just proves with tangible evidence that it is factually untrue.
FFS How many examples do you want?
How about the earth being flat?
or the solar system revolving around the earth.
or the countless theories on black holes.
or the idea that ulcers were caused by stress
cheers
65
-
are you feeling ok man ?
-
The Earth being flat was an observation. I can put a spirit level on the ground and it will show it is flat. That is a test of something tangible and it is scientific. But is it wrong? No. Go look up Eratosthenes. He used scientific method to show the Earth was curved before it could be observed.
The Earth in the center of the universe also made sense, bith through observation and mathematically, the time using circular motion.
All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new. But that's ok, I can sympathise with light weights in this area. Now go climb a tree with the other simians. U got rekt :cheers
-
All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.
So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then, as the vested interest groups would have us believe?
-
All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.
So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then,
99.999% - according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
linked about ten posts up
as the vested interest groups would have us believe?
what vested groups are you referring to?
the oil companies or the greens have more power you reckon
-
All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.
So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then, as the vested interest groups would have us believe?
Global warming is fact. Extensive testing and data shows. The proper argument is lost on many and I'm surprised because it would be a handy weapon in the debate and that is how much is man's contribution. The current carbon ppm in the atmosphere is around 800ppm. There is evidence in geology that it has been as high as 2000ppm, and as low as 150ppm. We are transitioning from an ice age. It was only about 10 or 12 thousand years ago that the Black sea didn't exist (kind of did but it was much much smaller), but rising ocean levels from the receding caps caused the Mediterranean to bust through what is now the Bosphorous strait, possibly leading to many of the ancient flood stories do to evidence of human settlement under the sea and along the old shore line. Ice samples for example though are showing a correlation between an acceleration in ppm levels and the time since the industrial revolution.
In the past these levels were regulated by simple greenhouse mechanics, and deforestation could be just as much a culprit as the junk we are pumping up into the air. As the CO2 levels rise, then plants will start decreasing the size of and the number of their stomata. This will lead to more ground water and probably de-desertification in some areas, but the plants will transpire less which leads to less rainfall. Human influence has been hugely to blame already for this by mowing down forests on massive scales.
To put my own opinion on it, we've past the point of no return. Learning and scientific advancement was oppressed by the church for nearly 1000 years. Had it not interfered we would have set foot on the moon over 100 years earlier, Mars already terraformed, and we'd have moved on long from burning fossil fuels for energy well before overpopulation and stuffing the planet.
We and life as we know will perish, but the Earth will keep on spinning while a new range of plants of animals that relish the climate will happily live on.
The only real reason to believe (have faith in) climate change is a lie is that some old jewish mythology says that as long as there is man to inhabit the Earth then it will be fine.
-
So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then,
99.999% - according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Thanks for agreeing with me.
as the vested interest groups would have us believe?
what vested groups are you referring to?
the oil companies or the greens have more power you reckon
Any group that stands to benefit or profit from their particular stance on climate change. And you can readily identify many of them as soon as you hear them spruik "the science of climate change is settled". As Dwaino rightly pointed out, true science is a continual process of discovering and understanding, testing and (dis)proving, and there is nothing in the field of science that has yet been able to prove or disprove anything on the science of climate change of enough scope to consider it as "settled".
-
Gotta love one-term Tony.
:lol
Coal is 'good for humanity', says Tony Abbott at mine opening
October 14, 2014 - 2:21AM
James Massola, Peter Ker, Lisa Cox
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia's coal industry has a "big future, as well as a big past" and predicted it will be the world's principal energy source for decades to come.
Mr Abbott also heaped praise on Japan in comments that come just days after China slapped harsh new tariffs on coal imports and will be noted in Beijing as negotiations on a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement move towards conclusion.
Industry has estimated the new tariffs could cost Australia's economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, though it will be some time before exact estimates can be made.
"Let's have no demonisation of coal," Mr Abbott said on Monday.
"Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coal-is-good-for-humanity-says-tony-abbott-at-mine-opening-20141013-115bgs.html#ixzz3G3C23fkG
-
About sums it up.
-
Now it's Joe Hockey's turn to be a idiot.
Joe Hockey ridicules suggestion Australia is among top emitters
Lenore Taylor
Joe Hockey has ridiculed a suggestion that Australia is one of highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the OECD, despite the fact that it does top the OECD rankings of greenhouse gases per capita.
“The comment you just made is absolutely ridiculous,” the treasurer said in an interview with the BBC when it was suggested to him that Australia was among “the dirtiest, most greenhouse gas-emitting countries in the OECD group of developed countries”.
“We’ve got a small population and very large land mass and we are an exporter of energy, so that measurement is a falsehood in a sense because it does not properly reflect exactly what our economy is,” Hockey said.
“Australia is a significant exporter of energy and, in fact, when it comes to coal we produce some of the cleanest coal, if that term can be used, the cleanest coal in the world.”
The latest OECD greenhouse gas emissions index, released in January, ranks Australia as the highest emitter per capita, with Luxembourg second, followed by the US and Canada.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/14/joe-hockey-idea-that-australia-tops-greenhouse-gas-emission-list-ridiculous
-
You missed the fine print as per usual
-
You missed the fine print as per usual
Just re-read the article and I am not sure what you mean.
-
As long as Tony and his outdated cabinet have:
Genesis 8:22
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Then there is nothing to be worried about. Remember the Earth has been around a staggering 6,000 years and will be around at least another 6,000. Don't be fooled by Satan's scientists.
-
The Government has also announced it wants to scale back the growth of electricity generated from renewable sources.
"Australian Government announces it will create a local market for it's largest export, coal, as the rest of the world turns it's back on the once favoured highly poluting energy source."
perma-link
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/government-wants-rooftop-solar-program-to-continue/5833664
-
The Government has also announced it wants to scale back the growth of electricity generated from renewable sources.
"Australian Government announces it will create a local market for it's largest export, coal, as the rest of the world turns it's back on the once favoured highly poluting energy source."
perma-link
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/government-wants-rooftop-solar-program-to-continue/5833664
This is dumb and short-sighted enough on its own but it's really dumb if China doesn't reverse its new import tariff on Australian coal.
-
All she had to do was ask Tony. Who needs peer reviewed journals when Tony is the expert on everything from science to women?
Like many people, I used to think the scientific community was divided about climate change. Then in 2004, as part of a book I was doing on oceanography, I did a search of 1,000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in the previous 10 years.
I asked how many showed evidence that disagreed with the statement made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report: “Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” I found that none did. Zero.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/science/naomi-oreskes-imagines-the-future-history-of-climate-change.html?_r=2&referrer=
-
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar.html
-
IPCC report warns greenhouse gas levels at highest point in 800,000 years, identifies fossil fuels as cause of recent increases.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-02/ipcc-say-greenhouse-levels-highest-point-in-thousands-of-years/5861314
-
IPCC report warns greenhouse gas levels at highest point in 800,000 years, identifies fossil fuels as cause of recent increases.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-02/ipcc-say-greenhouse-levels-highest-point-in-thousands-of-years/5861314
Just read through bits of the report attached to the article. By bits I mean I read 3 or 4 pages at a time then skipped a few and so on, so I'll have to go through the rest when it isn't 2:30am. It really is quite a damning report.
-
Wouldn't be trusting those lefty ABCpinkos
Tong ashould remove all funding
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE
He is absolutely correct.
What we need to do is to decrease the population dramatically.
How about another world war? The crisis in Syria and Iraq might provide the solution.
Maybe a modern day plague? Ebola in West Africa fits the bill.
Or maybe even a massive climatic change that could wipe out half the world's population.
All three seem reasonable solutions.
:cheers
-
Doug Stanhope rules. He's pretty right though. In the past the Earth has used natural mechanisms to regulate the temperature. With deforestation due to overpopulation for resources, living space, crops and livestock we're removing one of these components.
-
Lol
It's th consumer-capitalism dominate paradigm that's the problem. Th last American midterms cost four billion dollars just to run. While at the same time elderly prists are being arrested for feeding the homeless.
Food rights | ActionAid
www.actionaid.org/australia/learn/food-rights
Enough food is produced twice over every year than is needed to feed the world. There's no reason for anyone to go hungry. Hunger hits women and children ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE
He is absolutely correct.
What we need to do is to decrease the population dramatically.
How about another world war? The crisis in Syria and Iraq might provide the solution.
Maybe a modern day plague? Ebola in West Africa fits the bill.
Or maybe even a massive climatic change that could wipe out half the world's population.
All three seem reasonable solutions.
:cheers
Personally, I've always been fond of gas chambers. Neo-holocaust :clapping. Fr th good of mother earth
If the goal is indeed depopulation. Then the method of global warming is a fairly shyte way of going about it. Unless you are an oil company. In regards to efficiency, would a nuclear holocaust, world war or super aids type scenario not be beneficial?
There are some interesting conspiarcy theory in regards to this topic
; underground bases, super rich etc
-
The wealth of the top 0.1% is about to overtake the bottom 90%, just like it was before 1929. Move on citizen, nothing to see here... (economist.com)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/somearemoreequalthanothers
not enough money!
not enough land!
not enough food!
better kill off 5 billion and continue to invest in british petrolum :bow
-
How silly does Abbott look now.
What an absolute stuffwit.
Labor, Greens seize on US-China climate deal to attack Coalition policy on eve of G20
Labor and the Greens have seized on a historic climate change deal struck by the US and China to launch a blistering attack on the Abbott government's climate policy, arguing Australia is going backwards in tackling climate change, accused Prime Minister Tony Abbott of holding "flat earth views" and urging greater emissions reductions.
The deal comes on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane, which both US President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping will attend, and significantly ratchets up pressure on Mr Abbott, who has been reluctant to even discuss climate change at the economic summit. Climate change is conspicuously absent from major items on the agenda at the summit.
The US and Chinese presidents announced on Wednesday the US would target much deeper emissions cuts of 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, while China to cap its emissions growth by 2030, or sooner if possible - a commitment with potentially significant implications for Australian exports of coal to China.
It also set an ambitious goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 per cent of the country's energy mix by 2030. An equivalent target for Australia to the US pledge would be a 30 per cent reduction in emissions against 2000 levels by 2025.
Earlier this year, Australia scrapped its carbon tax and environmental groups now question whether the Coalition's replacement Direct Action policy can reach the stated target of a five per cent reduction by 2020.
Mr Shorten said on Wednesday the "historic and ambitious" agreement showed global leadership from the US and China.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-greens-seize-on-uschina-climate-deal-to-attack-coalition-policy-on-eve-of-g20-20141112-11l6e1.html#ixzz3IpWS2g00
-
about time those hypocrites committed to doing something instead of telling the world to. Lets just wait for the final summit in paris next year and see if they formally commit before you hippies all start waving your bras and knickers in the air in celebration.
I'm all for cutting emissions across the board, but I'm not sold on the global warming science - too many scientists are dubious about the science for me to buy in yet. Need hard proof, not models that are soon rebuffed. Remember Peter Beaties words in 2007 re the drought? "This is not a drought, this is the norm in weather as it is in our world today, the days of heavy rains are gone" 2 years later Queenslands dams were full and they changed the working title from global warming to climate change. LOL
-
How can scientists be dubious when the fact is there is not one peer reviewed scientific paper in the last 20 years that disagrees that change is a result of an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses? Only economists, conspiracy theorists and christians disagree. Tony as an economist, a flog and a christian won't change his mind regardless of what the rest of the world does. There are no ifs or buts, the planet is warming. CO2, N20 and CH4, the 3 most common greenhouse gasses produced from human activities make up nearly 90% of the increase in radiative forcing . There is hard data, in fact it's published almost every day from places as easily accessible as NASA Earth Observatory.
I'm sorry but it's true,
(http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj489/dwwaino/10610710_966517303369281_5597081011707144040_n_zps8f93911d.jpg)
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson hits it on the head. Scientists that are usually out to debunk each other to 'win points' are even in agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk
-
Has the earth gotten warmer in the last 15 years? bc I have seen somewhere (cant recall where atm and no it wasn't Bolt) that it hasn't(i'll try and find it)... I keep hearing gvt funded scientists talk about it and plenty of people with obvious agendas, but I am yet to be convinced and imv im not any of the groups you mentioned.
Im very cynical about the agendas at work here. Until the scientific world can unanimously come out and categorically show that x, y and z is happening I will continue to view it with cynicism, the only thing Ive ever seen to date is BS models by environmental ministers who have nfi that have been proven to be wrong in a short span of 5-7 years.
First it was global warming, then when the rains came it wa climate change, then when el nina settled down and weather patterns stabilized its now all about the levels in the atmosphere. The goal posts seem to keep changing. Whatever theyre selling - I aint buying atm.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2434628/IPCC-climate-change-report-Humans-causing-global-warming-STILL-explain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2434628/IPCC-climate-change-report-Humans-causing-global-warming-STILL-explain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html)
I thought the arctic icecap was decreasing at an alarming rate?
Im no expert, and there are plenty around like yourself who are obviously better versed on the subject than I am, but with a half arsed 1st attempted google search I found plenty of articles on this matter. happy to be shown the truth and admit Im wrong if I am, but until these types of articles and murmurs stop I wont buy into the fact that's its universally agreed upon.
-
A bit more reading the last 10 mins and Im starting to note that the general consensus NOW is that the surface isn't warming bc the ocean is storing it about a mile below the surface :lol there always seems to be a convenient excuse...
and that we shouldN'T look at a short term scale of 15 years rather look at 30 as the 80's and 90's showed a large increase in surface temp...how convenient..... well why not look at the last 60, from the 50's to the 70's bc back then the earth was apparently cooling... and really what is 30 years or 60 years in the whole scheme of 5 billion years of mother nature history. The earth has cooled and heated forever and a day - I dont think man is making much difference imv but I do agree for healths sake we need to drastically reduce emmissions. Stop the earth will die scaremongering BS and just do something about it. I truly believe climate change is a scam where the worlds few elite and greedy will get rich on a new form of economy(environmental) and that's the only reason why its getting political support.
-
Yes, the Earth has gotten warmer. Warming is change. What it means is that the warmer temperatures are hanging around longer as the years go on. Bush fire seasons are more prolific around the world because heat waves are longer, glaciers and ice caps don't freeze back to their previous year's size because the winter is not as long etc. The posts aren't moving, there have just been new discoveries from competing scientists who are only agreeing and adding on to previous truths. Not uncommon for them to be government funded though when they're employed by universities. The US is run by Wall St, Australia is run by coal and mining. Both have something to lose by being critical of the hard tested facts in hand that unanimously agree with climate change and have the most dangerous agenda if anyone does. There might be the odd well written rebuttal, but yet are any credible peer reviewed scientific literature.
As for the newspaper links, just because it isn't getting hotter by an obviously perceived value every year doesn't mean it is not warming. 15 years is too small a time frame when we're talking a rise of 0.8% globally since 1900. I don't know why Britain's temperature could decrease in that window (and the article doesn't say) but melting ice can decrease local ocean temperatures with are what create weather fronts. Lines like "Critics say this shows carbon dioxide isn't as damaging as was claimed" is absolutely rubbish because that is complete disregard of what radiative forcing is. Some of these sites are taking little bits of info to suit their cause, like a single stretch of ice was greater than the previous year (then goes to mention that the previous year was a record low), while on the larger scale some Antarctic and Greenland glaciers are on runaway melts. Then there is more crap like "But the leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report." So who leaked the documents? Speaking of agendas I'll take a stab in the dark and saw it is the governments, who are funding the report because it is the same governments run by Wall St, Koch Brothers etc are set to lose their wealth and they want the facts to suit them. They'll pass it on and say 'scientists disagree' while it is more likely their fat economist with a doctorate in money.
If you want math, diagrams and some hard references then here is an easy one http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
edit: that was easy regarding Britain. Positive and negative oscillation https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/significant_natural_climate_fluctuations.php further reading explains that it isn't always uniform and regions can encounter more positive or negative over a period of time. Probably where the deniers cherry picked periods of cooling over the caps despite overall ice coverage in recession causing an increase in sea level by 7.5inches since 1900.
-
A bit more reading the last 10 mins and Im starting to note that the general consensus NOW is that the surface isn't warming bc the ocean is storing it about a mile below the surface :lol there always seems to be a convenient excuse...
and that we shouldN'T look at a short term scale of 15 years rather look at 30 as the 80's and 90's showed a large increase in surface temp...how convenient..... well why not look at the last 60, from the 50's to the 70's bc back then the earth was apparently cooling... and really what is 30 years or 60 years in the whole scheme of 5 billion years of mother nature history. The earth has cooled and heated forever and a day - I dont think man is making much difference imv but I do agree for healths sake we need to drastically reduce emmissions. Stop the earth will die scaremongering BS and just do something about it. I truly believe climate change is a scam where the worlds few elite and greedy will get rich on a new form of economy(environmental) and that's the only reason why its getting political support.
So why did the Earth heat and cool itself? CO2 is absorbed through plants and animals. At the highest levels in history the Earth had no ice caps and little to no desert since plants require less water in the presence of higher levels. They also precipitated more which indirectly led to more cloud cover and reflecting more sunlight. Planet eventually gets colder. CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest levels in 800,000 years, yet we've ravaged the Earth's natural mechanisms to combat it. Deforestation is one of the biggest impacts man is having on their planet. Fact is if there has been no warming then why has the sea level risen by 7.5inches since 1900? Climate change can't be a scam when the pigs that run the governments are set to lose billions. The elected officials have bugger all say. They're elected by a majority who believe they're to benefit the most, and the officials are at the mercy of who ever is lining the pockets in order to deliver to their electorate.
-
200 million / 4 years
Lol
-
New data shows record fall in carbon emissions
Gareth Hutchens
The Age
December 23, 2014
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has quietly published data, just two days before Christmas, showing the second year of operation of Australia's carbon price was more successful at reducing emissions than the first.
New data from Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory show emissions declined across Australia by 1.4 per cent over the 12 months to June.
That compares to a decline in emissions of 0.8 per cent for the previous 12 months.
The carbon price was introduced by the Gillard government and began operation on July 1, 2012. It ended on July 1, this year after the Abbott government fulfilled an election pledge by abolishing it.
The new data, published on Tuesday, record emissions produced during the final year of operation of the carbon price, from June 2013 to June 2014.
They show the electricity (minus 4 per cent), agriculture (minus 2.6 per cent), industrial processes (minus 1.3 per cent) and transport sectors (minus 0.4 per cent) all experienced declines in emissions this year.
They were partially offset by a rise in fugitive emissions (5.1 per cent) and emissions from stationary energy (0.9 per cent).
Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/new-data-shows-record-fall-in-carbon-emissions-20141223-12d1z3.html
-
It’s official: 2014 has taken the title of hottest year on record. That ranking comes courtesy of data released Monday by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the first of four major global temperature recordkeepers to release their data for last year.
The upward march of the world’s average temperature since 1891 is a trademark of human-influenced global warming with 2014 being the latest stop on the climb. All 10 of the hottest years have come since 1998.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
-
thats odd. On the news the other night they said 2014 was the third hottest year on record. :huh
"Two men say they're Geez, one of them must be wrong!"
-
::)
-
thats odd. On the news the other night they said 2014 was the third hottest year on record. :huh
"Two men say they're Geez, one of them must be wrong!"
Third hottest year on record in Australia.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
Hottest year on record globally according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
As much as I love the lyrics of 'Industrial Disease' tiga :thumbsup, Science is the antithesis of religion. So yes both statements are correct.
-
It's scientific fact that Dire Straits are shyte.
-
It's scientific fact that Dire Straits are shyte.
Dire Straits first four albums were brilliant. Telegraph road is an absolute classic song both lyrically and musically. it was when they went "twistin' by the pool" when they went off the rails for me.
-
Can't say I'm a big fan myself, but Sultan's of Swing is one of the holy grails of the guitar. Play that note for note from memory and you're on your way to being a legend. Huge respect.
-
Can't say I'm a big fan myself, but Sultan's of Swing is one of the holy grails of the guitar. Play that note for note from memory and you're on your way to being a legend. Huge respect.
dwaino have a listen to the guitar in telegraph road. :thumbsup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8sLmx2Oz6Y If you love guitar check out Mark Knopfler ripping it up from the 10 minute mark.
-
Yep great playing :thumbsup eat em alive and myself quite the guitar junkies. He has the better rig though ;D
-
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record.
The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/
Global Temperature anomaly graph 1880-2014: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf
-
what annoys me most is the greens demanding that we reduce green house gasses yet they refuse to consider nuclear energy. :banghead
-
what annoys me most is the greens demanding that we reduce green house gasses yet they refuse to consider nuclear energy. :banghead
Nuclear fission is quite 'old-school' technology these days. It was also mentioned by the Howard government that it would take roughly 25 years for Australia to fully convert to nuclear. The future of nuclear is the holy grail of nuclear fusion reactors which in theory produce far less radioactive waste and won't meltdown with massive environmental and economic consequences to the local area. I remember a CSIRO report a couple of years ago where Hydrogen-generated energy was listed as part of Australia's long-term future energy market make-up along with the usual 'greenie' renewables such as solar, wind, thermal, etc. So I wouldn't discount nuclear (fusion) as being part of the long-term plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
The main political opposition to nuclear is moreso the NIMBY factor. Most people are happy to have major projects built provided it's not anywhere near them :yep. Also the best location for a nuclear reactor is actually near a desalination plant such as at Wonthaggi in Victoria which is in a Coalition-held seat. So I can't see any side of politics supporting it and risking the electoral backlash in their own seats.
-
http://theconversation.com/the-tesla-battery-heralds-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-fossil-fuels-41197 (http://theconversation.com/the-tesla-battery-heralds-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-fossil-fuels-41197)
This sounds brilliant and doesnt seem like its just a pipe dream
-
Yeah it is really isn't it, TM. I owe my very job to Tesla (the man) and have always been a massive fan. If it wasn't for Edison and General Electric shafting Tesla then these sorts of innovations would have been realised decades ago.
-
i'm not getting too excited yet, they are still using known technology L-ion which does not have a long life. no mention is made of the expected lifespan of these batteries, which has to be taken into account when talking cost as well as environmental impact.
-
Cells and batteries also don't put out enough power (actual power as in p=VI) to run or sustain motors, but ideas like these are great for powering things like lighting and low power appliances such as TV's and stuff.
-
According to a nutcase Liberal adviser...
Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott's business adviser Maurice Newman
Date May 8, 2015 - 10:34AM
Lisa Cox
National political reporter
Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html
-
Take these two articles together and get really scared.
:lol
Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister in exile
Date May 9, 2015 - 12:15AM
James Massola
Political correspondent
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has quit political life in Australia to take up a position as inaugural head of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York. But observers say it's the post of UN Secretary General that really interests him. By James Massola.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-prime-minister-in-exile-20150508-ggv0no.html
According to a nutcase Liberal adviser...
Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott's business adviser Maurice Newman
Date May 8, 2015 - 10:34AM
Lisa Cox
National political reporter
Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html
-
No one is of more wasted humanity than a right wing conspiracy theorist. NO ONE
-
isa Cox
National political reporter
Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule,:facepalm according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.
democracy... , or ultra consumer-capitalism resource raping without limits?
-
isa Cox
National political reporter
Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule,:facepalm according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.
democracy... , or ultra consumer-capitalism resource raping without limits?
Proper link or referencing or it gets removed
You know the rules Judge
-
isa Cox
National political reporter
Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule,:facepalm according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.
democracy... , or ultra consumer-capitalism resource raping without limits?
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html
Proper link or referencing or it gets removed
You know the rules Judge
It was just a copy of my quote so I have included the link. :thumbsup
-
lol
-
lol
-
It was just a copy of my quote so I have included the link. :thumbsup
The he should have used the quote feature
Doesn't matter if it's from here or not it must be properly referenced
He knows the rules
-
Was just checking out the guts of a stripped down Tesla car. There is nothing to them, would probably need to add some weight to the chassis to maintain traction. Couldn't see if they are brushless but in principle looks like just a variable torque slip ring motor that transfers torque to the wheels through a gearbox, or down a drive train if you want rear wheel drive. Will put the mechanics and emirates out of business but make those in a niche trade like mine rich.
At the moment though would still have a bigger footprint than a small car in Australia since to charge them would require burning more coal than it does to burn petrol.
-
2015 set to be hottest on record: UN
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/2015-set-to-be-hottest-on-record-un/news-story/4dc12a4f836397eb2d40073bbf68ed9f
-
Confirmed.
Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read more: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/)
-
Confirmed.
Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read more: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/)
Hasn't stopped oil tycoons the Koch brother spending millions on funding research into climate change deniers research., according to Bernie Sanders.
This also
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/
-
hmmm
-
Confirmed.
Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read more: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/)
Hasn't stopped oil tycoons the Koch brother spending millions on funding research into climate change deniers research., according to Bernie Sanders.
This also
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/
Overall it's been literally a trillion-dollar decade for the oil and gas giants. From 2002 to 2011, ExxonMobil gained $310.6 billion, Shell $203.9 billion, Chevron $151.8 billion and BP $146.9 billion
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/320-80/10322-big-6-oil-companies-complete-a-trillion-dollar-decade
-
Confirmed.
Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read more: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/)
Hasn't stopped oil tycoons the Koch brother spending millions on funding research into climate change deniers research., according to Bernie Sanders.
This also
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing/
Overall it's been literally a trillion-dollar decade for the oil and gas giants. From 2002 to 2011, ExxonMobil gained $310.6 billion, Shell $203.9 billion, Chevron $151.8 billion and BP $146.9 billion
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/320-80/10322-big-6-oil-companies-complete-a-trillion-dollar-decade
And the planet has been taken another 10 steps into hell and high water so that these old white men can add to their bank balances.
Someone should remind them they can't take it with them.
-
All the talk about Global warning is just a spin so the goverments of the world can suck money from everyone so they can live up life & everyone is paying for it
its all rubbish
And I'm not a sucker for political spin, and smoking is good for you.
-
We are not goin to cut Emissions by not going nuclear. that is a proven and safe energy source available right now.
Bump.
Hello Japan 2011.
Be sure to leave the fall out for inhaling by your kids and not ours. No? Why not?
-
I think people need to be more educated about nuclear power. Chernobyl wonte happen again its reactors was out dated technology even at the time of the disaster plus no western country uses RBMK reactors.
Nuclear experts say the changes have substantially reduced the technical likelihood of a repeat of the Chernobyl blast.
“Very significant changes have been made in the technology,” International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director Tomihiro Taniguchi told The Associated Press. “The IAEA is firmly committed that such an accident not happen again.”
Good effing lord!
-
Well Chernobyl didn't happen again. Fukushima was due to natural disaster, not man made.
-
:lol "stuffushima"
No, stuff you, shima.
-
Natural disaster in japan
Yeah who saw that comming
-
Yep, who would have thunk maintaining a nuclear reactor on a major earthquake fault line (built to 1967 standards) and practically on the beach front, in the home of tsunamis, as a safe idea?
We should build more, preferably in tornado alley and on the side of volcanoes.
After all,
We are not goin to cut Emissions by not going nuclear. that is a proven and safe energy source available right now.[quote/]
-
That doesn't mean nuclear power isn't safe though. Not much can survive extreme natural disasters like that and since Australia doesn't have to worry about earthquakes or tsunamis we are perfectly suited to host one or two. Only reason we don't is so we don't is because too many pockets are lined by coal. Throughout the entire history of nuclear power there has only been one INES rated at 7 which was Chernobyl, and that was due to operators switching off failsafes to push the reactor. stuffushima is ranked 7 but that's only as an incident and was out of their control. It had nothing to do with being nuclear, it was also unlucky that measures in place to prevent such an incident were also knocked out. Seperate reactors were rated at different INES magnitudes, lowest 3 and highest 5. All previous incidents have been 4 or less which the effects are only local and non-threatening.
There is an unfair stigma surrounding nuclear power. Two major meltdowns in a century and less fatalities than from gas bottle explosions in workplaces every year. Radiation outside of the wavelengths we are use to (don't forget we are pounded with harmful wavelengths from our own sun everyday too) can be harmful but right now you're more likely to get sick from drinking water from Flint (Michigan) than swimming in Pripyat or stuffushima. Ever watch River Monsters on Discovery? The bloke was fishing in the cooling pond looking for some fabled giant cat fish. I agree that disasters involving nuclear power can be catastrophic but they're just so uncommon and as technology gets better they're even more unlikely.
My only concern at the moment concerning nuclear is the storage of waste.
-
Building a nuke plant where there is a high chance of earthquake godzilla tsunami is not safe
-
They've had earthquakes before and it has withstood them. Radiactive fallout, coal mine fires, what doesn't have a risk attached?
-
Given the islands location around the ring of fire and the predicted future Tectonic plates activity, and the known outcomes of nuclear accidents its not a good mix. Some sources say too, the stuffusima* fallout is really bad and yet not reported in the media.
* lol
-
They've had earthquakes before and it has withstood them. Radiactive fallout, coal mine fires, what doesn't have a risk attached?
Solar? Wind? Biomass?
-
Great for lighting and heating water but not much else.
I'm all for panels on every single house and building but still need something more substantial for things like fridges, air, etc anything with a motor.
-
Great for lighting and heating water but not much else.
I'm all for panels on every single house and building but still need something more substantial for things like fridges, air, etc anything with a motor.
Maybe 5 years ago
-
False Dooksie. You can't run motors off that sort of supply. Unless you know something I don't when I've been in electric motors and machinery for 13 years.
-
Pentti Likola.... :shh
-
False Dooksie. You can't run motors off that sort of supply. Unless you know something I don't when I've been in electric motors and machinery for 13 years.
I might be missing something, but recharge a Chevy Bolt (or similar) from the grid which is supplied by that sort of supply?
-
It's more complicate than that but I'll try. Those are torque or traction motors in axles similar to those in trains. They're on a DC supply delivered by a charge from a capacitor that is powered from a high current 110v/240v supply. A typical solar panel meters around 12v DC after about an hour in direct sunlight with a current fit for not much other than powering a light. As you run them into an inverter for AC and a usuable voltage you lose current. Chemical cells are fixed around that too, if you meter your car battery you will get around 14v DC but that is recharged via a generator. Low load bearing single phase motors like fans and such might only pull half an amp at no load but any motor will take around 6 times its full load current on start up. So even the little pedestal fan you got from Kmart for $10 will takes around 3 amps to start up the a steady steam of 0.5A. Often a pool pump for example will be put on a 15A circuit with a type D breaker due to full load exceeding the standard 10A rating of a single phase power circuit on a type C breaker. The your oven (if electric) is already on its own 36A circuit. These are just currents you can't get off DC cell supply. Sorry if it seems like a tangent but trying to list examples why current technology just cant do it. This isn't even touching on 3phase supply which is required for industry.
To generate the power we need it can be done in a number of ways by using a turbine but it's all the same. You have permanent magnets set up in a stator housing. They are transferring flux north to south. A wound/conductive rotor (armature) goes through the middle. Turning it literally 'cuts' the flux which produces an AC voltage. It can be done in any way by using wind, water (hydro), steam (burning coal or running water over a hot radioactive core), but it's the constant generation that keeps things running that cells aren't capable of. Another thing too is that voltage drops over distance. The massive lines you see coming cross country from a plant to a city are carrying around 250-260k V AC. It is stepped down at sub stations then the trannies on the poles you see around are maintaining a steady 220-240v.
I'm all for clean energy too by the way. IMO it would be cheaper for the government to put panels on every roof than to build any sort of new plant. That way we aren't burning coal just to turn a light or TV on or hear water which sounds ridiculous. Then we would only be using coal to turn on things like air cons and use fridges. We could probably do this off wind farms but industry will need something more substantial. We may or may not have blown pole fuses in the past running up motors in our workshop :whistle there are some motors as big as a two story house used on crushers at the mines, good luck powering that off anything else.
-
search 'dead fish pacific ocean'
-
It's more complicate than that but I'll try. Those are torque or traction motors in axles similar to those in trains. They're on a DC supply delivered by a charge from a capacitor that is powered from a high current 110v/240v supply. A typical solar panel meters around 12v DC after about an hour in direct sunlight with a current fit for not much other than powering a light. As you run them into an inverter for AC and a usuable voltage you lose current. Chemical cells are fixed around that too, if you meter your car battery you will get around 14v DC but that is recharged via a generator. Low load bearing single phase motors like fans and such might only pull half an amp at no load but any motor will take around 6 times its full load current on start up. So even the little pedestal fan you got from Kmart for $10 will takes around 3 amps to start up the a steady steam of 0.5A. Often a pool pump for example will be put on a 15A circuit with a type D breaker due to full load exceeding the standard 10A rating of a single phase power circuit on a type C breaker. The your oven (if electric) is already on its own 36A circuit. These are just currents you can't get off DC cell supply. Sorry if it seems like a tangent but trying to list examples why current technology just cant do it. This isn't even touching on 3phase supply which is required for industry.
To generate the power we need it can be done in a number of ways by using a turbine but it's all the same. You have permanent magnets set up in a stator housing. They are transferring flux north to south. A wound/conductive rotor (armature) goes through the middle. Turning it literally 'cuts' the flux which produces an AC voltage. It can be done in any way by using wind, water (hydro), steam (burning coal or running water over a hot radioactive core), but it's the constant generation that keeps things running that cells aren't capable of. Another thing too is that voltage drops over distance. The massive lines you see coming cross country from a plant to a city are carrying around 250-260k V AC. It is stepped down at sub stations then the trannies on the poles you see around are maintaining a steady 220-240v.
I'm all for clean energy too by the way. IMO it would be cheaper for the government to put panels on every roof than to build any sort of new plant. That way we aren't burning coal just to turn a light or TV on or hear water which sounds ridiculous. Then we would only be using coal to turn on things like air cons and use fridges. We could probably do this off wind farms but industry will need something more substantial. We may or may not have blown pole fuses in the past running up motors in our workshop :whistle there are some motors as big as a two story house used on crushers at the mines, good luck powering that off anything else.
I think I get it now. In a slightly related question, what are your thoughts on domestic battery storage for solar power, and, the likely tech we might see in panels in the next 5 years?
-
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12592289_10208846752432599_6246283017252103205_n.jpg?oh=2754304b26f989628f50bd4e08fe0b82&oe=572EFE1E)
-
I'm no scientist but what the hell is going on?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Asia - coldest temperatures in 60 years.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-hong-kong-coldest-temperatures-years.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35395780
Britain - coldest winter in 50 years
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/604619/Long-range-weather-forecast-Britain-cold-winter-2015-arctic-snow-freeze
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/633273/Snow-weather-uk-severe-alert-forecast-south-snowbomb
North America - coldest temperatures in 120 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959492/Return-Polar-Vortex-Arctic-weather-phenomenon-returns-time-winter-threatens-hit-East-Coast-historic-low-temperatures.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/polar-vortex-coldest-weather-decades
Europe - coldest in 50 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9051921/Siberian-cold-front-sweeps-across-Europe-bringing-record-low-temperatures.html
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
So, is the planet warming or cooling?
Do I need more Reef Dark Suntan Oil or should I be stocking up on thermals?
-
(https://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/26/19/enhanced/webdr06/enhanced-25942-1427414324-7.jpg)
-
:lol
-
I'm no scientist but what the hell is going on?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Asia - coldest temperatures in 60 years.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-hong-kong-coldest-temperatures-years.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35395780
Britain - coldest winter in 50 years
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/604619/Long-range-weather-forecast-Britain-cold-winter-2015-arctic-snow-freeze
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/633273/Snow-weather-uk-severe-alert-forecast-south-snowbomb
North America - coldest temperatures in 120 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959492/Return-Polar-Vortex-Arctic-weather-phenomenon-returns-time-winter-threatens-hit-East-Coast-historic-low-temperatures.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/polar-vortex-coldest-weather-decades
Europe - coldest in 50 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9051921/Siberian-cold-front-sweeps-across-Europe-bringing-record-low-temperatures.html
Global warming relates to the Earth's biosphere retaining an increasing amount of thermal energy (warming) thanks to the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases we're pumping into the atmosphere (CO2 being the dominant radiative or climate forcing which is a positive forcing and one increasing the most). This additional and increasing thermal energy has two effects - (i) the mean global temperature trend is rising over time (2015 was the hottest year in recorded history and this mean global temperature is now a degree higher than pre-industrial times) and (ii) this additional and increasing energy acts like an amplifier on our climate system which leads to a higher probability of more extreme weather events (both hot and cold) occurring more often. So for example, a one in a hundred year weather event may now or in the near future occur once in a decade.
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Are the denialist crowd still trying to pull this debunked claim from over a decade ago? lol
Fact is the vast majority of actual climate science journal papers back in the 70s were related to man-made global warming and how it would swamp the natural milankovitch cycles.
So, is the planet warming or cooling?
Do I need more Reef Dark Suntan Oil or should I be stocking up on thermals?
2015 broke the hottest year record by some margin (previous hottest was 2014).
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
-
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Are the denialist crowd still trying to pull this debunked claim from over a decade ago? lol
Fact is the vast majority of actual climate science journal papers back in the 70s were related to man-made global warming and how it would swamp the natural milankovitch cycles.
MT, did you even read the blog post? This fellow gives many real examples are of actual media propaganda of that decade. No mention is any article in that lot of global warming or John Malkovich cycles. Just over & over reports on how the experts predict a period of rapid cooling and the potential of an imminent ice age.
It's bloody easy to say you meant something else when you said the opposite, as a parent I've done it more times than I can remember but this stinks like crap.
Your a smart fellow and I'm sure you could post some very impressive data from the seventies that told us the world was warming and not cooling or that the world was cooling because it was warming or even data from the seventies that tells us it was a man made problem & I'd be happy to read it. But I challenge you to find some real media articles that were telling us what they are telling us now. Find some articles published in a popular newspaper during a the seventies that said this before you post some mumbo-jumbo that I can't understand. ;D. I don't remember anything until maybe the late 80's obviously when things didn't get colder as predicted but got hotter.
Did you at least watch Mr Spock? No mention of global warming in that video & it scared the hell out of me as little kid but at least we weren't forced to watch it like an inconvenient truth became compulsory viewing in some regions.
-
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Are the denialist crowd still trying to pull this debunked claim from over a decade ago? lol
Fact is the vast majority of actual climate science journal papers back in the 70s were related to man-made global warming and how it would swamp the natural milankovitch cycles.
MT, did you even read the blog post? This fellow gives many real examples are of actual media propaganda of that decade. No mention is any article in that lot of global warming or John Malkovich cycles. Just over & over reports on how the experts predict a period of rapid cooling and the potential of an imminent ice age.
It's bloody easy to say you meant something else when you said the opposite, as a parent I've done it more times than I can remember but this stinks like crap.
Your a smart fellow and I'm sure you could post some very impressive data from the seventies that told us the world was warming and not cooling or that the world was cooling because it was warming or even data from the seventies that tells us it was a man made problem & I'd be happy to read it. But I challenge you to find some real media articles that were telling us what they are telling us now. Find some articles published in a popular newspaper during a the seventies that said this before you post some mumbo-jumbo that I can't understand. ;D. I don't remember anything until maybe the late 80's obviously when things didn't get colder as predicted but got hotter.
Did you at least watch Mr Spock? No mention of global warming in that video & it scared the hell out of me as little kid but at least we weren't forced to watch it like an inconvenient truth became compulsory viewing in some regions.
I've seen the Spock video about a decade ago when this 1970s cooling myth was doing the rounds on denialist sites like WUWT.
The media of the 1970s, especially in the US, wanted a story on the period of cool temperatures in the Northern hemisphere (as opposed to global temps) back then. Climate studies of the day were still split into separate scientific fields. Geologists knew about Milankovitch cycles in reference to the connection between orbital effects and ice ages; Two guys named Rasool & Schneider wanted to model aerosols, which have a cooling effect. Some in the media grabbed on to all of these and put two and two together to get five.
The bulk of the peer-review scientific literature into climate studies though in the 1970s was about global warming from increasing CO2 due to human activity. Consensus was achieved by the mid-late 1970s. There are media articles from the 50s/60s/70s that talk about global warming.
SCIENCE IN REVIEW
Warmer Climate on the Earth may be due to more Carbon Dioxide in the Air.
By Waldemmar Kaempffert
New York Times
Oct 28, 1956
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf
Title: Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution
Publication: The New York Times
Date: Dec 21, 1969
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Scientists have warned the human race that it is running the risk of allowing pollution to destroy life in the oceans and to alter the earth's climate by raising temperatures.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9405EEDB1F3BE73ABC4951DFB4678382679EDE#
WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due
By WALTER SULLIVAN ();
New York Times
August 14, 1975,
Articles in two scientific journals have questioned widely publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely affecting food production and, perhaps, initiating a new ice age.
Dr. Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north [northern hemisphere] will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806E5DC1E3CE034BC4C52DFBE66838E669EDE
-
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Are the denialist crowd still trying to pull this debunked claim from over a decade ago? lol
Fact is the vast majority of actual climate science journal papers back in the 70s were related to man-made global warming and how it would swamp the natural milankovitch cycles.
MT, did you even read the blog post? This fellow gives many real examples are of actual media propaganda of that decade. No mention is any article in that lot of global warming or John Malkovich cycles. Just over & over reports on how the experts predict a period of rapid cooling and the potential of an imminent ice age.
It's bloody easy to say you meant something else when you said the opposite, as a parent I've done it more times than I can remember but this stinks like crap.
Your a smart fellow and I'm sure you could post some very impressive data from the seventies that told us the world was warming and not cooling or that the world was cooling because it was warming or even data from the seventies that tells us it was a man made problem & I'd be happy to read it. But I challenge you to find some real media articles that were telling us what they are telling us now. Find some articles published in a popular newspaper during a the seventies that said this before you post some mumbo-jumbo that I can't understand. ;D. I don't remember anything until maybe the late 80's obviously when things didn't get colder as predicted but got hotter.
Did you at least watch Mr Spock? No mention of global warming in that video & it scared the hell out of me as little kid but at least we weren't forced to watch it like an inconvenient truth became compulsory viewing in some regions.
I've seen the Spock video about a decade ago when this 1970s cooling myth was doing the rounds on denialist sites like WUWT.
The media of the 1970s, especially in the US, wanted a story on the period of cool temperatures in the Northern hemisphere (as opposed to global temps) back then. Climate studies of the day were still split into separate scientific fields. Geologists knew about Milankovitch cycles in reference to the connection between orbital effects and ice ages; Two guys named Rasool & Schneider wanted to model aerosols, which have a cooling effect. Some in the media grabbed on to all of these and put two and two together to get five.
The bulk of the peer-review scientific literature into climate studies though in the 1970s was about global warming from increasing CO2 due to human activity. Consensus was achieved by the mid-late 1970s. There are media articles from the 50s/60s/70s that talk about global warming.
SCIENCE IN REVIEW
Warmer Climate on the Earth may be due to more Carbon Dioxide in the Air.
By Waldemmar Kaempffert
New York Times
Oct 28, 1956
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf
Title: Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution
Publication: The New York Times
Date: Dec 21, 1969
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Scientists have warned the human race that it is running the risk of allowing pollution to destroy life in the oceans and to alter the earth's climate by raising temperatures.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9405EEDB1F3BE73ABC4951DFB4678382679EDE#
WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due
By WALTER SULLIVAN ();
New York Times
August 14, 1975,
Articles in two scientific journals have questioned widely publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely affecting food production and, perhaps, initiating a new ice age.
Dr. Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north [northern hemisphere] will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806E5DC1E3CE034BC4C52DFBE66838E669EDE
:clapping
Well done MT you came through :thumbsup and thanks for making the effort & taking the time. :cheers
In relation to the Spock video I personally didn't get that from any denialist site rather I truly remembered it from watching it sometime in the eighties and it scared me at the time.
-
I still remember being petrified as kid after Dr Spock told me we were entering another potential ice age because the scientists told us the evidence was there....
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
One dude has already found many articles on the 70's ice age scare.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Are the denialist crowd still trying to pull this debunked claim from over a decade ago? lol
Fact is the vast majority of actual climate science journal papers back in the 70s were related to man-made global warming and how it would swamp the natural milankovitch cycles.
MT, did you even read the blog post? This fellow gives many real examples are of actual media propaganda of that decade. No mention is any article in that lot of global warming or John Malkovich cycles. Just over & over reports on how the experts predict a period of rapid cooling and the potential of an imminent ice age.
It's bloody easy to say you meant something else when you said the opposite, as a parent I've done it more times than I can remember but this stinks like crap.
Your a smart fellow and I'm sure you could post some very impressive data from the seventies that told us the world was warming and not cooling or that the world was cooling because it was warming or even data from the seventies that tells us it was a man made problem & I'd be happy to read it. But I challenge you to find some real media articles that were telling us what they are telling us now. Find some articles published in a popular newspaper during a the seventies that said this before you post some mumbo-jumbo that I can't understand. ;D. I don't remember anything until maybe the late 80's obviously when things didn't get colder as predicted but got hotter.
Did you at least watch Mr Spock? No mention of global warming in that video & it scared the hell out of me as little kid but at least we weren't forced to watch it like an inconvenient truth became compulsory viewing in some regions.
I've seen the Spock video about a decade ago when this 1970s cooling myth was doing the rounds on denialist sites like WUWT.
The media of the 1970s, especially in the US, wanted a story on the period of cool temperatures in the Northern hemisphere (as opposed to global temps) back then. Climate studies of the day were still split into separate scientific fields. Geologists knew about Milankovitch cycles in reference to the connection between orbital effects and ice ages; Two guys named Rasool & Schneider wanted to model aerosols, which have a cooling effect. Some in the media grabbed on to all of these and put two and two together to get five.
The bulk of the peer-review scientific literature into climate studies though in the 1970s was about global warming from increasing CO2 due to human activity. Consensus was achieved by the mid-late 1970s. There are media articles from the 50s/60s/70s that talk about global warming.
SCIENCE IN REVIEW
Warmer Climate on the Earth may be due to more Carbon Dioxide in the Air.
By Waldemmar Kaempffert
New York Times
Oct 28, 1956
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf
Title: Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution
Publication: The New York Times
Date: Dec 21, 1969
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Scientists have warned the human race that it is running the risk of allowing pollution to destroy life in the oceans and to alter the earth's climate by raising temperatures.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9405EEDB1F3BE73ABC4951DFB4678382679EDE#
WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due
By WALTER SULLIVAN ();
New York Times
August 14, 1975,
Articles in two scientific journals have questioned widely publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely affecting food production and, perhaps, initiating a new ice age.
Dr. Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north [northern hemisphere] will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806E5DC1E3CE034BC4C52DFBE66838E669EDE
:clapping
Well done MT you came through :thumbsup and thanks for making the effort & taking the time. :cheers
In relation to the Spock video I personally didn't get that from any denialist site rather I truly remembered it from watching it sometime in the eighties and it scared me at the time.
No probs, Tigeritis :cheers.
Coincidently, I stumbled over this Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal (NSW) article today from way back in 1912.
COAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE.
The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/100645214
Given the modern concept of AGW didn't really begin to become a concern amongst scientists until the 1950s, this Australian prediction was well ahead of its time :o.
-
http://electrek.co/2016/04/28/i-was-wrong-about-the-limits-of-solar-pv-is-becoming-dirt-cheap/
-
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/modelling-shows-move-to-100-renewable-energy-would-save-australia-money
-
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/22/a-huge-crack-is-spreading-across-one-of-antarcticas-biggest-ice-shelves.html
-
The 90 companies thy killed earth: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says
-
Australia is on track to miss its 2030 carbon pollution reduction target, with official data released ahead of the Christmas break showing emissions are still rising.
The federal government on Thursday made public the official quarterly emissions data for the year to June showing an increase of 0.8 per cent on the previous year.
It also released projections showing emissions in 2030 will be just 0.5 per cent lower than 2005 levels, rather than the government's own targets of 26-28 per cent lower.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australias-carbon-emissions-on-the-rise/news-story/e0ba39f1d0bd21ea272b20e93e7a896a
"Direct Action" is working well. :sarcasm
-
2016 warmest year on record globally, NASA and NOAA data show.
Third record-breaking year in a row for average surface temperatures.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118112554.htm
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
-
And yet we had our coldest winter in a long time here and they have had a really cold winter in the states
-
And yet we had our coldest winter in a long time here and they have had a really cold winter in the states
The majority of the globe isn't just parts of Australia or the US though (the US had its 3rd hottest summer in 2016 by the way). In any case, it's the long-term mean global temperature trend that is of note rather than a single year data point of what is a non-linear system. There may probably be some slight natural correction to the recent El Nino over 2017 but the long term trend continues to increase thanks to human activity artificially pumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere (now at 406ppm and rising). Ad nauseam talk from certain scientifically illiterate and politically bias media and blogsphere of "pauses" and even global cooling meaning the end of global warming, has not surprisingly been shown to the false.
Global warming relates to the increasing energy withheld within the Earth's climate system due to the 'blanket' effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as CO2). This is turn results in climate change = more extreme weather more often. As the Earth warms (withholds more energy), you'll expect over time to observe hotter than usual summers more often, colder than usual winters more often, heavier precipitation than usual more often when there's precipitation, droughts that are harsher and last longer than usual, etc ... The increasing energy withheld (warming) acts as an amplifying effect on the Earth's climate.
-
How are global temperatures measured? and is it reliable?
Have temps been taken from the same places year after year after year since they started keeping records?
Why do greenhouse gases create hotter summers and colder winters?
In an age of fake news coming from old media where agendas and headlines are more important than journalistic integrity, how can I trust that what's being reported is actual fact and not just rubbish opinion pieces using stats to suit their argument.
im naturally a very cynical person and not ashamed to admit that I can't help but feel strongly that this is all being pushed in the background by some that stand to make A LOT of money from it. I have tried to read up on it as much as I can but find it extremely difficult to find reliable black and white answers.
-
who currently has the power to influence science and stands to make a lot of money from it?
The only established industry that stand to benefit is potentially the nuclear industry, and that is only small in the scheme of things, especially when compared to the fossil fuel industry who stand to lose the most. It is also unlikely they gain any great growth.
By all means, follow the money trail, but this isnt like the processed food industry influencing nutritional science as they have since ansell keys forged his findings that animal fat causes heart disease. there really isnt any money trail as the big money and influence is actually against the notion
-
Hooray for the Holocene, may it reign for as long as we can keep the party Rolling on :cheers. When it comes to an end, and it will, there will be 3 areas in Australia that will sustain small communities (as evidenced by archeological records)....and I will be keeping that info to myself thank you very much :thumbsup BTW this topic isn't "controversial", it is physics. The climate fluctuates, so what!
-
and the quicker the climate changes the harder it is for animals and plants to adapt, but so what? Humans are above nature anyway.
-
I think its likely that as other primary species evolve on other planets that these planets environments and climates would be modified to best fit the needs of that species. Anything which isnt needed or which is dangerous would be killed off. Crops and terraforming the planet to a stable pleasant ecosystem to best sustain life and well being of the primary species. Meteorology would be mastered. Ice caps and deserts would be replaced with purposeful populated fields.
In fact, it may even be that preserving planets at their original state and including caring what other lesser species think is seen as highly primitive or backward.
Having said that, the climate change that is occuring here on Earth is probably more harmful than good to our specie in yhe medium to long term. We have no idea the full repercussions of what we are doing. And the more species lost the less stock we have for dna, medical research, nanotech etc etc and other research which could have benefitted our species in the future.
-
How are global temperatures measured? and is it reliable?
Depends on the how far you want to go back in time. Prior to 150 years ago, you require various proxies (eg: ice cores) to determine past temperatures, CO2 levels, etc. The past 150 years has been measured with land, sea and air based scientific instruments, while satellites are now used as well (past 40-50 years). The proxies and scientific instrument based data match up over the crossover period (late 1800s) [n.b. post-1960 the tree ring proxy deviates but that's known to scientists]. Measurements are more reliable with improving technology.
Have temps been taken from the same places year after year after year since they started keeping records?
Not an issue as a process known as homogenisation is used to average out micro-climate differences over large areas.
Why do greenhouse gases create hotter summers and colder winters?
Increasing greenhouses gases mean the Earth's climate system retains more energy (more energy = global warming). This in time will increase the intensity and frequency of climate extremes (both hot and cold, etc). A weather event that was say a once in a century event may now occur more often.
In an age of fake news coming from old media where agendas and headlines are more important than journalistic integrity, how can I trust that what's being reported is actual fact and not just rubbish opinion pieces using stats to suit their argument.
im naturally a very cynical person and not ashamed to admit that I can't help but feel strongly that this is all being pushed in the background by some that stand to make A LOT of money from it. I have tried to read up on it as much as I can but find it extremely difficult to find reliable black and white answers.
The vast majority of scientists are thankfully not politicians nor politically biased journos and media commentators. Using a proof by contradiction, if AGW was false then the scientist(s) that showed it would immediately become the preeminent climate scientists being chased by the most prestigious scientific institutions/universities and private companies. Despite this carrot, the vast majority of climate scientists agree about AGW based on their views of the empirical evidence that supports AGW. The study of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere goes back to the late 19th century (1896) and knowledge of AGW as far back as the late 1950s. Scientific consensus was pretty much reached by the late 1970s. That's a long time to ago to be pushing a "scam".
-
Being on the wrong side of science and history must be a bummer......and a waste of a life.
-
I suppose the way i look at its likelihood is, if 99% of doctors said i had cancer and recommended treatment, and 1% said i didnt and do nothing, would i gamble on ignoring it? Probably not.
-
I suppose the way i look at its likelihood is, if 99% of doctors said i had cancer and recommended treatment, and 1% said i didnt and do nothing, would i gamble on ignoring it? Probably not.
stuff... If it wasn't you I wouldn't respond. Science is not reached by consensus and certainly not by inter- governmental panels of 'climate scientists' and bureaucrats'. There are thousands of scientists that dissent and only one of them needs to be right. Our society is being constrained by Environmental Luddites who ironically are constraining innovation that would lead to a pollution free (monoxide not dioxide) and energy sovereign future. Stay away from the 'dark-side' Dooks , you worry me.
-
Being on the wrong side of science and history must be a bummer......and a waste of a life.
I wouldn't know. I don't waste my life on conspiracy websites.
It wasn't climate scientists claiming global warming had stopped and that we were about to go into a global cooling phase just before the last 3 years of record mean global temperatures ... oops! :lol Too bad, the empirical evidence and trends continue to show AGW.
A real scientist would never use a apathetic Abbott-like phrase such as "climate fluctuates. So what!". A scientist wants to understand how our climate system works? What are the underlying causes and phenomena? What's our climate's history? How does the current climate compare to past climate? Are the causes/phenomena the same or different to the past? What do climate trends mean in terms of future climate?, etc ...
-
Australia's emissions rise by 2.2 per cent.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/28/18/39/australia-s-emissions-rise-by-2-2-per-cent/?ocid=9newstw
-
So much for the evil carbon tax.
Energy crisis: Wholesale power prices have doubled since the carbon tax was axed
Adam Morton
A growing crisis in the electricity market has led to wholesale power prices more than doubling in a year - and rising to at least twice what they were under the much-maligned carbon price.
An analysis by the University of Melbourne's Climate and Energy College, produced for the Greens, found the average wholesale electricity price soared to $134 a megawatt hour in the summer just finished, compared with $65-$67 in the two summers the carbon price was in place.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/energy-crisis-wholesale-power-prices-have-doubled-since-the-carbon-tax-was-axed-20170308-gutf8t.html
-
http://www.afr.com/news/tesla-battery-boss-we-can-solve-sas-power-woes-in-100-days-20170308-gut8xh
-
Global carbon dioxide emissions steady for three years, raising hopes of a long-term trend downwards
By Kerri Worthington and wires
March 18, 2017
A greener energy mix has helped keep energy-related carbon dioxide emissions flat in 2016 yet more needs to be done to avert a harmful rise in global temperatures, new data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows.
Energy sector emissions were unchanged from 2015 and 2014 even though the global economy grew by 3.1 per cent, the IEA estimated.
Read more at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-18/carbon-emissions-flat-despite-economic-growth/8366110
-
I wonder how the coal loving Coalition is taking this.
Coal in decline: an energy industry on life support
Special report: The pace of coal plants shutting down in Australia could mean the country’s fleet could be gone before 2040. The transformation is enormous – and seems inevitable
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/24/coal-in-decline-an-energy-industry-on-life-support
-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/bjorn-lomborg/how-alarmist-rhetoric-warps-climate-policy/news-story/108c02ec0781a8c2e71b19540212035a (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/bjorn-lomborg/how-alarmist-rhetoric-warps-climate-policy/news-story/108c02ec0781a8c2e71b19540212035a)
This guy pretty much sums up where I sit on climate change
-
End of 2017 update:
Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA
Earth's global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.
Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png)
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/
WMO confirms 2017 among the three warmest years on record
In a clear sign of continuing long-term climate change caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, 2015, 2016 and 2017 have been confirmed as the three warmest years on record. 2016 still holds the global record, whilst 2017 was the warmest year without an El Nińo, which can boost global annual temperatures.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2017-among-three-warmest-years-record
-
That's so depressing even our flag from last year doesn't help ease the reality of this.
Is it even a controversial topic?
-
Is it even a controversial topic?
Not anymore except for scientifically illiterate politicians and loony conspiracy theorists :sleep.
-
The NEG is being modified further in an attempt to mollify the Conservatives in the Liberal Party.
It is no longer about carbon emissions or electricity prices or base load power.
It is all about Turnbull being desperate to cling to power.
Dead man walking.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/17/turnbull-ditches-emissions-legislation-to-head-off-backbench-dissent
-
Tesla battery proves a leading source of dispatchable power, AEMO says.
Australia's electricity grid requires regular small adjustments to keep the supply and demand of electricity in balance and keep the system operating at the required frequency — a tight band around 50 hertz.
The Tesla big battery is registered to provide these "frequency control ancillary services" or FCAS.
According to AEMO, the speed, precision and agility of the battery is unprecedented in dealing with these regular, small frequency variations as well as major power disturbances.
Conventional coal-fired or gas-fuelled generators might take seconds; the battery takes milliseconds.
Not only are its responses technically superior, it has also lowered the cost of providing these services.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420
-
"even the climate has changed in space" - Craig Kelly MP :stupid :rollin
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DokMHI1V4AAVrM0.jpg:large)
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fossil-fuels-craig-kelly-liberals-climate-20181003-p507ia.html
It says a lot about the current state of politics and its inability to come up with workable policies on issues such as this when we have complete and utter imbeciles like this bloke in our federal parliament :facepalm.
-
Australia is not on track to reach its Paris 2030 climate target, with emissions actually rising in the past four years, according to new Federal Government data.
(https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/10647104/data/australian-emissions-projections-graph-data.jpg)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-21/australia-to-fall-well-short-of-emissions-targets/10646522
-
20 years of dithering.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/howard-government-told-without-a-carbon-price-emissions-would-rise-20181227-p50og9.html
-
20 years of dithering.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/howard-government-told-without-a-carbon-price-emissions-would-rise-20181227-p50og9.html (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/howard-government-told-without-a-carbon-price-emissions-would-rise-20181227-p50og9.html)
Can you imagine the renewable energy industry that we would have now if little Johnny had listened.
We would be world leaders.
:thumbsup
-
Can you guess SCoMo's chief of staff's previous occupation?
:lol
-
Can you guess SCoMo's chief of staff's previous occupation?
:lol
You mean the same guy from Rio Tinto who lacquered that piece of coal that Morrison had in parliament so the coal dust wouldn't dirty Morrison's hands during a debate on clean energy.
-
Hmmm, I thought the Government was doing a great job bringing down carbon emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018 (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018)
-
Hmmm, I thought the Government was doing a great job bringing down carbon emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018 (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018)
Considering our population has been increasing, it probably has come down per capita..... :shh
-
dont encourage him
-
dont encourage him
I don't need encouragement.
The climate os going to poo but hey who cares.
I'll be dead before it gets too bad. Stuff the grandchildren, they can look after themselves.
:cheers
-
dont encourage him
I don't need encouragement.
The climate os going to poo but hey who cares.
I'll be dead before it gets too bad. Stuff the grandchildren, they can look after themselves.
:cheers
I think we all care, but the question is what can we do that is effective? Maybe we'll send the Greens who hold seats to India and China where the greatest impact can be made, to direct them on how to make a real difference. That would be good for Australia..... :shh
-
Action on climate change makes economic sense.
Put money into research and sell the technology to the world.
:cheers
-
Who cares, honestly
We can't do anything about it.
Live and let live
:cheers
-
I wonder why the government has stalled the release of climate emissions data for 6 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data)
-
I wonder why the government has stalled the release of climate emissions data for 6 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data)
Considering it makes no difference whatsoever, why does anyone care that it will be late? Everyone has completely swallowed the lie that what we do here will somehow save the world. It won't sadly.
-
I wonder why the government has stalled the release of climate emissions data for 6 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data)
Considering it makes no difference whatsoever, why does anyone care that it will be late? Everyone has completely swallowed the lie that what we do here will somehow save the world. It won't sadly.
It matters because we have just been through an election campaign where the Libs constantly said that emissions were coming down.
Surely they weren't lying, surely not. Not ScoMo, he is as honest as the day is long.
:cheers
-
I wonder why the government has stalled the release of climate emissions data for 6 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/03/disgrace-angus-taylor-under-pressure-after-failing-to-release-emissions-data)
Considering it makes no difference whatsoever, why does anyone care that it will be late? Everyone has completely swallowed the lie that what we do here will somehow save the world. It won't sadly.
It matters because we have just been through an election campaign where the Libs constantly said that emissions were coming down.
Surely they weren't lying, surely not. Not ScoMo, he is as honest as the day is long.
:cheers
June 21st is just around the corner.... :shh
-
Pull out of Paris and the corrupt Anti-Western UN... :shh
-
Coal has a place in our energy mix while we transition to renewable energy.
Forget the Government, they are irrelevant.
Industry and the Finance sectors are making the move.
Adani will only go ahead if Gautan Adani puts in $4 billion of his own money (because nobody else will lend him the money)
My bet is that he will find an excuse to pull out of the mine.
:thumbsup
-
Either the Government is incompetent or they just don't care about the the future of the planet.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476)
-
Either the Government is incompetent or they just don't care about the the future of the planet.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476)
I'm not sure why you care about the government's performance in this area. It makes zero difference to climate change. We've said this before many times.
-
As I have said before.
Action on climate change makes economic sense.
Put money into research and sell the technology to the world.
:cheers
-
As I have said before.
Action on climate change makes economic sense.
Put money into research and sell the technology to the world.
:cheers
Putting money into research into alternative energy sources doesn’t in anyway guarantee a successful commercially viable export solution. It also has nothing to do with current trends in emissions as the two are mutually exclusive.
-
Either the Government is incompetent or they just don't care about the the future of the planet.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476)
Either? Porque no los dos?
-
As I have said before.
Action on climate change makes economic sense.
Put money into research and sell the technology to the world.
:cheers
Putting money into research into alternative energy sources doesn’t in anyway guarantee a successful commercially viable export solution. It also has nothing to do with current trends in emissions as the two are mutually exclusive.
Yep, but putting your head in the sand and ignoring undeniable fact sure as hell does.
-
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-jobs-on-a-dead-planet-warns-world-s-top-union-leader-20190617-p51yia.html (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-jobs-on-a-dead-planet-warns-world-s-top-union-leader-20190617-p51yia.html)
"There are no jobs on a dead planet"
-
Still obsessing over a bloke who's not even in parliament anymore...#thesadleft :shh
-
As I have said before.
Action on climate change makes economic sense.
Put money into research and sell the technology to the world.
:cheers
Putting money into research into alternative energy sources doesn’t in anyway guarantee a successful commercially viable export solution. It also has nothing to do with current trends in emissions as the two are mutually exclusive.
Yep, but putting your head in the sand and ignoring undeniable fact sure as hell does.
As a man of science I would dispute your comment that climate change being caused by human behaviour is an undeniable fact. I would say there is reasonable scientific evidence to suggest there is a link but to state it is FACT is not correct. So before making comments that are not correct, take a moment and think about what you are posting.... :shh
-
If we lose the permafrost then we are well on the way to a climate disaster that could mean the end of the world as we know it.
Permafrost contains a whole lot of stored methane and carbon dioxide.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis)
-
Lot of methane on here just quietly
-
A new report published ahead of key UN climate talks has warned the world is falling drastically behind in the race to avert climate disaster, with the five-year period ending in 2019 the hottest on record.
Key points:
The new report revealed that global temperatures between 2015-2019 were the hottest on record
It noted carbon emissions in the same period had risen by 20 per cent
Its authors also warned of the alarming extent of sea-level rise and melting glaciers
The data, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says climate change is accelerating, with sea levels rising, carbon dioxide levels increasing and ice sheets melting faster than ever before.
The 2015 Paris Agreement saw countries lay out national targets to reduce their emissions to limit long-term temperature rise by either 2 degrees Celsius or 1.5C.
These are benchmarks that will limit in important ways the impact of warming on world weather systems.
But even if all countries meet the goals they set themselves, the world will warm by 2.9C to 3.4C, the report found.
The current levels of ambition would need to be tripled to meet the 2C goal and increased five-fold to meet the 1.5C goal — which is technically still possible.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/climate-change-accelerating-warn-scientists/11537240
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxpgRqxtEA
-
These climate activists running amok on the streets of melbourne is nothing more than unemployed dole bludging rent a crowd. They should be arrested and put in jail for stupidity. I blame the left and the imbeciles from Get Up. How so many morons could exist in the world is beyond me. There should be laws stopping these dropkicks from breeding coz the world will become full of unemployable dropkicks. They should also have their newstart allowances suspended. Get a job morons and stop bludging of hard working australians. And just to think their spiritual leader is a 16 yo kid from sweden whose got mental problems.
-
How can anyone say Climate Change is a bad thing now....
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/21/entertainment/coldplay-stop-touring-environment-scli-intl-gbr/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3GHcO5XcjmKaeyDl5Zqd85hwlbGI1DwSVsZPu4RNnqd7mHq8-yWSgy5x8
My kids will definitely be getting lumps of coal from "Santa" this year... :shh
-
2019 was officially Australia’s hottest and driest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
The weather bureau has just released its climate statement for 2019, showing annual rainfall was “very much below average” across the country last year, while the national mean temperature was 1.52 degrees Celsius above average.
The last seven years have been among the top 10 warmest on record for Australia, with temperatures rising just over 1C since 1910, the BOM said.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/2019-was-australias-warmest-year-on-record-bureau-of-meteorology-confirms/news-story/fda39d97fe882ee1386575309736b2fa
-
Not much of a debate anymore - the global warming and climate change is very real unless you want to buy into the conspiracy and suggest the bureau of meteorology is in the pocket of the Greens!
-
Why is this marked as a controversial topic? Its not.
-
Why is this marked as a controversial topic? Its not.
Not from a science perspective.
This thread goes back to 2009 just as denialist Abbott became opposition leader (and then future PM) and he and his political cronies wrecked havoc by denying evidence of and action on climate change for their own political benefit on advice from Credlin as she latter admitted. Then add their usual scientifically illiterate political cheerleaders in the media (Bolt & co.) who were still trying to claim there had been no warming since 1998. Totally pathetic and morally corrupt behaviour!
Stuff like this:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-official-talking-through-her-hat-on-bushfires-and-climate-change-says-tony-abbott-20131023-2w0mz.html#ixzz2iWQEhfJo
Hindsight hasn't made Abbott's comments back in 2013 any less ignorant and costly ::).
-
This was one of my favourite quotes from Tony Abbott.
Mr Abbott also said the carbon tax was a socialist policy in disguise.
"Let's be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism mask raiding as environmentalism," he said.
"That's what the carbon tax was."
-
NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record.
Globally, 2019 temperatures were second only to those of 2016 and continued the planet's long-term warming trend: the past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.
This past year, they were 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png)
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/
-
Even the latest Dr Who ep had a climate change message.
-
Even Dr. Who eh? What about Spiderman and Bugs Bunny? I heard Spongebob was particularly concerned about rising sea levels.. :shh
-
Even Dr. Who eh? What about Spiderman and Bugs Bunny? I heard Spongebob was particularly concerned about rising sea levels.. :shh
I think they were all part of the 11,000 scientists who signed the petition :shh
-
:shh :shh
-
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/13/08/89/96/greta10.jpg)
:shh
-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/why-finance-is-fleeing-fossil-fuels/11903928 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/why-finance-is-fleeing-fossil-fuels/11903928)
The future of coal has already been decided in boardrooms around the globe.
Early last month, as fire swept across large parts of the east coast and South Australia but before the Christmas conflagration, secret internal documents detailing ANZ's rapid retreat from coal hit the news.
Contrary to its public statements before Parliament just a few weeks before, the bank had formulated a plan to shed more than $700 million in thermal coal loans within the next four years: a 75 per cent reduction.
This was a major shift for ANZ, the country's biggest lender to the coal industry, and one that would bring it into line with the Commonwealth Bank and the National Australia Bank.
A few weeks later, investment bank Goldman Sachs, in one of the strongest positions from any American financier, ruled out future thermal coal financing, either for new mines or power stations globally.
Then, a fortnight ago, the world's biggest investment house Blackrock, announced it was drastically reducing its exposure to thermal coal.
-
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/13/08/89/96/greta10.jpg)
:shh
40 degrees coming this week. Roll out the climate theories again.
it shouldnt happen in February. Greta knows
-
40 degrees coming this week. Roll out the climate theories again.
it shouldnt happen in February. Greta knows
Strawman argument ::).
Seasonality is taken into account in scientific measurements. It's called "seasonally adjusted" data which compares data from the same time each year for each specific location. If this seasonally adjusted data has a statistically significant trend upwards then temperatures are increasing over time.
-
40 degrees coming this week. Roll out the climate theories again.
it shouldnt happen in February. Greta knows
Strawman argument ::).
Seasonality is taken into account in scientific measurements. It's called "seasonally adjusted" data which compares data from the same time each year for each specific location. If this seasonally adjusted data has a statistically significant trend upwards then temperatures are increasing over time.
Don't let the truth stand in the way of a foolish argument my friend
-
They should just let coronaviris spread through china. If they lose half there population that will fix climate change.
-
They should just let coronaviris spread through china. If they lose half there population that will fix climate change.
:shh
-
(https://7img.net/users/3115/50/25/04/smiles/2156412274.gif) :whistle :shh
-
They actually spoke about the effects of covid-19 in relation to AGW on the news. China's emissions fell significantly during their shutdown and the height of the outbreak there. But they are starting to rise again in certain areas now the outbreak there is subsiding. The problem hasn't gone away.
This corona crisis should be a lesson that out of control global events can bring down the world economy. We should be doing everything in our power to prevent them. It's too damaging being reactive or worse trying to claim it's a hoax until the proverbial hits the fan.
ps. It's also a lesson for pollies that you should listen to the experts.
-
The new narrative when this all over.."look at how the climate improved when all the planes(ie commercial flights serving the great unwashed) were grounded , cars were off the road and industry shut down -Holy Toledo Batman, Saint Greta was right!!" LMAO....can see it coming a mile off......and just like before with the "climate emergency" and now with the virus, Chicom's corrupt UN puppets and their legions of useful idiots in the West will continue to do their bidding and deflect the blame from them as those mass murdering Maoists laugh their arses off back in Beijing.... :shh
This corona crisis should be a lesson that out of control global events can bring down the world economy. We should be doing everything in our power to prevent them.
You mean the powers that be might finally learn that you need the capacity to be self-sufficient and not bind yourself too much to foreign nations and their fortunes, that globalism ain't all it's cracked up to be and mass migration & open borders might not be such grand ideas after all? Yeah nah... :shh :shh
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/study-shows-antarctica-was-tropical?ignore_amp
Was it man made global warning supposedly 52 million years ago?
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/study-shows-antarctica-was-tropical?ignore_amp
Was it man made global warning supposedly 52 million years ago?
You have just made Greta's hit list
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/study-shows-antarctica-was-tropical?ignore_amp
Was it man made global warning supposedly 52 million years ago?
Did you read the whole article rather than just the headline?
It was a completely different world back then. 52m years ago (Eocene) the modern continents of Australia and South America had either only just separated or were still attached to Antartica (Gondwanaland). That allowed warm ocean currents to be funneled far south to the Antartican coastline. The warmer temperatures weren't only due to higher CO2 levels at that time. Once Antartica became a totally isolated continent and circumpolar (~36m years ago), it only encountered cold ocean currents which caused significantly cooling.
Humans obviously didn't exist back then either. It was mostly a world of birds, small reptiles and small mammals on land. The dinosaurs had become extinct ~14m earlier and we wouldn't evolve until another ~50m years later :shh.
https://www.themaparchive.com/the-world-50-million-years.html
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
-
The chinese are responsible for climate change and the corona virus. If corona wiped out 500 million chinese the world wouldnt have a climate change problem. The chinese are ruining the world. Trump us correct.
-
The chinese are responsible for climate change and the corona virus. If corona wiped out 500 million chinese the world wouldnt have a climate change problem. The chinese are ruining the world. Trump us correct.
thank you Ramps. I'm glad someone can see it.
-
The chinese are responsible for climate change and the corona virus. If corona wiped out 500 million chinese the world wouldnt have a climate change problem. The chinese are ruining the world. Trump us correct.
The industrial revolution started in China? :huh3. I'm sure the CCP in Beijing would love to spin it that way but no. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have been studied since the late 19th century and man-made global warming has been known as an issue since the 1950s. China's rise (as a power as well as their carbon emissions) has only occurred in the last 30 years. Likewise, India is only recent in terms of their high emissions. Hence the need for global action including from Australia which is still highly dependent on fossil fuels and so to void economic risk we need to ween ourselves off them.
The shutdowns worldwide have reportedly seen a 8% reduction in emissions/pollution. Good for the environment and people living in highly polluted cities which are now clear but that's not a viable solution to climate change. We can't survive like this economically and just like post-GFC, emissions will rise quickly again as soon as the crisis is over. Only a move to cleaner renewable energy sources will reduce emissions while still growing the economy. The bogus argument that climate action will hurt the economy is now moot. It's now an opportunity to stimulate our economy (and create new jobs) which was slowing even before the coronacrisis and will be in recession with high unemployment when the crisis is over.
As for dopey Trump and his denialism, he walked away from global action on climate change and according to him we should ingest and inject disinfectant to treat covid-19 instead :wallywink. Summed up by one of his supporters protesting against the lockdowns over there - "I don't believe in your science. I believe in my god" :stupid :lol.
-
The chinese are the biggest polluters in the world. They cause most of the problems.
-
Stop undermining Marxist narrative Ramps...#ignoranceisbliss #usefulidiots :shh
-
...and before anyone says I only blame the left and think they're the only useful idiots - people like Twiggy Forrest are a stuffing disgrace too & should be hanged for treason...as do quite a few on corporate & so-called conservative (i.e. mainly neo-con) side of the ledger.... :shh
-
Its great she can keep her relevance in these troubles times
https://honey.nine.com.au/latest/confusion-over-greta-thunbergs-inclusion-on-a-coronavirus-panel/401a4056-0370-4d7a-9ba7-7e52dd91a1b2 (https://honey.nine.com.au/latest/confusion-over-greta-thunbergs-inclusion-on-a-coronavirus-panel/401a4056-0370-4d7a-9ba7-7e52dd91a1b2)
-
She can use her special magic aspbergers super powers to see it in the air just like she can with carbon... :shh
-
ScMo has found his climate voice. Pity it is only because it is politically advantageous to him.
-
Despite covid and its impacts, 2020 was still the equal warmest year on record.
2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows
NASA
January 14, 2021
Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2020 tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record, according to an analysis by NASA.
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, the year’s globally averaged temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit (1.02 degrees Celsius) warmer than the baseline 1951-1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. 2020 edged out 2016 by a very small amount, within the margin of error of the analysis, making the years effectively tied for the warmest year on record.
“The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important — the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.”
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png)
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20210114/
-
^
Could have fooled me. Been a crap summer so far!
-
^
Could have fooled me. Been a crap summer so far!
La Nina means we've had above average rainfall here in Victoria (and NSW). The opposite happens in WA. That's why it's very dry over there and they've got bushfires.
http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/2530/annual-climate-statement-2020-australias-fourth-warmest-year-on-record/-9d3a-459e-a445-740e32d03e5c
-
^
Could have fooled me. Been a crap summer so far!
La Nina means we've had above average rainfall here in Victoria (and NSW). The opposite happens in WA. That's why it's very dry over there and they've got bushfires.
http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/2530/annual-climate-statement-2020-australias-fourth-warmest-year-on-record/-9d3a-459e-a445-740e32d03e5c
Thanks I forgot we had la nina
Watch the fish markets suffer
-
Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC
GENEVA, Aug 9 – Scientists are observing changes in the Earth’s climate in every region and across the whole climate system, according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report, released today. Many of the changes observed in the climate are unprecedented in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, and some of the changes already set in motion—such as continued sea level rise—are irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years.
However, strong and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases would limit climate change. While benefits for air quality would come quickly, it could take 20-30 years to see global temperatures stabilize, according to the IPCC Working Group I report, Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis
Faster warming
The report provides new estimates of the chances of crossing the global warming level of 1.5°C in the next decades, and finds that unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach.
The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Every region facing increasing changes
The report projects that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For 1.5°C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows.
But it is not just about temperature. Climate change is bringing multiple different changes in different regions – which will all increase with further warming. These include changes to wetness and dryness, to winds, snow and ice, coastal areas and oceans. For example:
* Climate change is intensifying the water cycle. This brings more intense rainfall and associated flooding, as well as more intense drought in many regions.
* Climate change is affecting rainfall patterns. In high latitudes, precipitation is likely to increase, while it is projected to decrease over large parts of the subtropics. Changes to monsoon precipitation are expected, which will vary by region.
* Coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding in low-lying areas and coastal erosion. Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century.
* Further warming will amplify permafrost thawing, and the loss of seasonal snow cover, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and loss of summer Arctic sea ice.
* Changes to the ocean, including warming, more frequent marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, and reduced oxygen levels have been clearly linked to human influence. These changes affect both ocean ecosystems and the people that rely on them, and they will continue throughout at least the rest of this century.
* For cities, some aspects of climate change may be amplified, including heat (since urban areas are usually warmer than their surroundings), flooding from heavy precipitation events and sea level rise in coastal cities.
Human influence on the past and future climate
“It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed,” said Masson-Delmotte. Yet the new report also reflects major advances in the science of attribution – understanding the role of climate change in intensifying specific weather and climate events such as extreme heat waves and heavy rainfall events.
The report also shows that human actions still have the potential to determine the future course of climate. The evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change, even as other greenhouse gases and air pollutants also affect the climate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/