• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
As I've long thought, one day the Chinese will bite the coal industry on the bum, and it has come to pass.

Last week the iron-ore price had fallen to a significant low.

In another thread I said:-

"TA seems to want Australia to be a quarry for the world but seems to have no other vision for Australia's future..

What happens when there is no more stuff to gig up, or when there is nothing left to privatise?"

He seems to have put many of Australia's eggs into the mining basket.

Aiui royalties from coal-mining account for only 2% of NSW revenue, yet coal-mining appears to hold greater significance to most of the public. Perhaps the Minerals Council's PR department have pulled the wool over many people's eyes.

Australia has a great opportunity to develop other export products, but TA seems to think that mining will fix all woes.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Coal will be with us for a long time.

China may slow for a bit but with 60% still living in areas that are rural and development still underway what is happening is they need a breath / pause now and them.
You can create real jobs in industries that are just excuses for union or industry based life support system. $50 Billion to build subs here or $25 Billion elswhere with repairs fitouts etc here. But at what cost? It's called economies of scale and it killed the car industry and is the reason we buy off the shelf planes, ships etc.

Bill Shortens rant about Japan must have left all the good union member working at Toyota seem like traitors.

If you look at the future then high tech coal items like turning it into oil or the 400 other products that can be made from it including plastics, paint etc.
Instead we have the Greens etc wanting it dead and the jobs it has.

They will not all get work as solar panel sales persons.
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
^^^^^^
Here are some sources that inform my opinion:

· RSS satellite data shows no warming from 1996 to now; 18 years.
· UAH satellite figures show the hottest year was 1998 and the warming trend stopped around 2000.
· Land thermometers—GISS, NCDC, and HadCrut- do show a continuing warming trend but significant doubts exist about their corrupted data.
Thanks for replying. Actually all three datasets show warming, and any claims about "corrupted datasets" need to be backed up with hard evidence. You know that nearly all of this data is public access don't you?

FYI here are the trend lines for both satellite measurements and surface measurments:
1920px-Satellite_Temperatures.png


Fawcett & Jones 2008 shows linear increases in temperatures in all three data sets
fawcett_linear.gif

To repeat, the last decade was the hottest ever, and the hottest years were 2010 and 2005, not 1998 (a notably hot year influenced by el nino).

Ocean temperatures can only be adequately measured by the Argo buoy network (Wikipedia). Argo buoys duck dive down to 700m, recording temperatures, then come up and radio back the results. There are 3,000 of them floating around all the world’s oceans. The Argos buoys have only been operational since the end of 2003. Since then they show a slight cooling. Source Link.
There is some meat here - either the oceans are warming or they are cooling. This can't go both ways, either you win or I win on this one. This is what the US NOAA says about the matter:

heat_content2000m.png

Feel free to check the figures yourself, they're from the World Ocean Database project. Me personally, I'd be inclined to believe they know more about what they're talking about than someone on a rugby forum. Also FYI, from the proper source (the operators), Argo buoys actually go down 2000 metres.
The earth was just as warm 1000 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) existed, and was similar to current temperatures. Ljungqvist’s comprehensive studies (2012) suggest current temperatures are not unusual.
The medieval warm period only occurred in some regions, it was not global, and in those regions where it DID occur, it is now warmer than it was then. Have a look for yourself.

There is enough legitimate data around to tell me that the theory of CAGW can be disproved. Climate change is chaotic, natural, and very minimally influenced by people.
You cannot account for the OBSERVED heating of the planet without including an enhanced greenhouse effect. The figures simply don't add up. We KNOW that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity, and it was worked out in the 19th century that this would definitely affect the climate. This is NOT rocket science, it is basic physics and chemistry.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
My post didn't mention them, because I was talking about TA.

Are you introducing irrelevancies in the hope of derailing the issue?

It is hardly an irrelevancy to show that other world leaders are also missing the UN climate summit. You say that TA is a "short-term man, doesn't think long-term", and cite as evidence his decision not to go. I am not derailing the issue to point out that several other heads of Government have made the same decision, and they can hardly be identified as short-term leaders.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
It is hardly an irrelevancy to show that other world leaders are also missing the UN climate summit. You say that TA is a "short-term man, doesn't think long-term", and cite as evidence his decision not to go. I am not derailing the issue to point out that several other heads of Government have made the same decision, and they can hardly be identified as short-term leaders.


Again, my post didn't mention them, because I was talking about TA.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Feel free to check the figures yourself, they're from the World Ocean Database project. Me personally, I'd be inclined to believe they know more about what they're talking about than someone on a rugby forum. Also FYI, from the proper source (the operators), Argo buoys actually go down 2000 metres.
The medieval warm period only occurred in some regions, it was not global, and in those regions where it DID occur, it is now warmer than it was then. Have a look for yourself.
That post is very comprehensive and I'll look carefully at all of it.

For this average rugby forum participant, the range of contradictory evidence is what sends out signals of caution. For example, Dr Marohassy has identified problems with at least 3 of the Australian land measuring stations (Amberley, Williamtown, and Rutherglen). Recorded temperatures have been adjusted and a mild warming at Williamtown of 0.4 degree C per century from 1951 to 2012, was homogenised into dramatic warming of 1.6 degree C per century. If we can't trust land measurement techniques, then we can't believe the story those measurements are telling.





Additionally, the UAH charts seen at WUWT show a minimal temperature rise for at least the last decade. The rapid rise in CO2 emissions during that time was predicted to cause global warming - but it hasn't. That's a warning bell right there.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
For this average rugby forum participant, the range of contradictory evidence is what sends out signals of caution.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are entirely convinced that the evidence is clear that the humans are causing climate change and then there are a few outliers (who are mostly funded by conservative think tanks which are in turn funded by wealthy conservatives often with vested interests in the fossil fuel industries (such as a the Koch brothers)) trying to destabilise that message by picking holes in small bits of information.

This is why the average rugby forum participant should listen to what the experts say, rather than letting it be clouded by the few determined to ensure that nothing is done.

It is ridiculous that the people suggesting a cautious approach are doing it from the side that being cautious means doing nothing and ignoring the danger. It's entirely the opposite of being cautious.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Jennifer Marohasy's scientific qualifications are in entomology. This is her list of peer reviewed climate research:

Shouldn't be an issue - Tim Flannery became Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission on the back of his work in mammalogy, palaeontology, and population studies.
The homogenisation of BoM figures is arguably fraudulent. Marohasy's analysis appears sound, and I assume she is expanding her range of homogenised temperature recording sites.
Her web site does quote relevant peer reviewed research:
"Peer reviewed journals that have published Dr Marohasy over recent years include: Atmospheric Research, Advances in Atmospheric Research,Wetlands Ecology and Management."
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
You cannot account for the OBSERVED heating of the planet without including an enhanced greenhouse effect. The figures simply don't add up. We KNOW that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity, and it was worked out in the 19th century that this would definitely affect the climate. This is NOT rocket science, it is basic physics and chemistry.

I have read Werner Brozek's analysis at Watts Up With That (summary - most data sets show no or insignificant warming for the last 4 years and 9 months through to 16 years and 4 months) and also a rebuttal on a site called HotWhopper (summary - it's not a reasonably accurate interpretation)

It seems from all the debate that the science is not settled.
 

sarcophilus

Charlie Fox (21)
I really don't want to believe in the theories of those other 97 scientists as I would be much more comfortable believing there is nothing wrong. How many of those ninety seven do we need to persuade to make the bad thing go away.
If we can fix the scientists we don't need to worry about the info they keep collecting.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
For those who cannot accept the scientific reasoning for what ever reason, simply ask yourselves if climate change is a hoax why has the insurance industry been factoring in the risk since the late 70s early 80s.These are people driven purely by probabilities and profit.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
It is interesting that the Rockefeller family have decided to divest itself of a substantial chunk of its oil-based investments to invest in clean energy.

Perhaps they have seen the writing on the wall.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
It's starting to look compelling though when big money starts to shift to clean energy, specifically saying in this case that the fossil fuel industry is just about at its end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top