1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Scotty that is a red herring. The question is whether there is any valid counterpoint to the science. The CC is injecting science into a political debate. Whether Gillard drives a dump truck or rides a bicycle is completely irrelevant as to whether we should do anything about climate change.
  2. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Cutter, this is a politics forum, where we are also discussing climate change and our response to it. What Gillard drives may well be irrelevant to whether we should do anything about climate change, but it is most certainly not irrelevant to whether we should be doing what our politicians are asking of us (if they do not do so themselves). She and her comrades need to walk the walk if they are going to talk the talk. How you could possibly disagree with this is beyond me.

    An analogy would be for Phil Waugh, as captain of the Waratahs, telling his team mates they all need to train harder, but then not doing so themselves. Doesn't really work, does it?
  3. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    I don't know why you think this is a point against anything i've said. They probably pollute just like everyone else, and at most can be called hypocrites for doing so.

    Reducing greenhouse emissions will require a group effort, so it would be nice to see these "leaders" leading by example. But really, it's an irrelevant point. Many other countries have already started using market mechanisms to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the Australian labor government is simply joining in.
  4. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Ok, maybe I'll have a go at another question. (Puts helmet on.)

    Greenhouse Effect = Global Warming
    > amounts of greenhouse gases = > greenhouse effect

    Question - What is the earth's greatest (biggest) greenhouse gas?
    Question - What percentage does this gas make up out of all greenhouse gases?
  5. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Another question I have, which is difficult to find an answer on, is this:

    Is the world currently the hottest it has ever been? Was it hotter during the Holocene Maximum?

    I'll throw another in that I have read conflicting studies about:

    Is there evidence that instead of increase CO2 leading to increase temperatures, in fact in the history of this earth, increase temperatures have led to increased CO2?
  6. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    It wasn't a point against what you said, just a a few questions, and thought posting below someone with 'car' in their name was apt.
  7. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    Fair enough, my bad.

    Funnily enough, probably water vapor. But the Earth can sustain the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, and it only remains in the atmosphere for a few days at a time. Followed by the natural levels of CO2 (which is sustainable). What the atmosphere might struggle to sustain is the big increase in man-made CO2 pollution. Maybe methane as well.

    Here is a brief description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere (there is a description of the role water vapor plays, and pretty much most of the information you're looking for)

    In the description above, water vapor about 40-60%, carbon is 10-25%. I'm pretty sure the goal is to get our C02 pollution close to where it was before the industrial area. It was 280ppm (parts per million), currently it is 380ppm. I forget exactly what the sustainable recommendation is, 320ppm rings a bell, i'll have to check.

    Here is a brief table of the human contributed gases: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
  8. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    I've read water vapor is 95% and that our contribution via CO2 is something less than 0.2%.

    Also read that we've had levels as high or higher than 380ppm prior to the industrial age.
  9. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    1. Where?

    2. No one is saying the levels haven't been higher. But the whole argument is about how much the eco system will change at the current rate. And is it desirable? Just because it may have been higher for a period of time in the past, doesn't mean everything will sort itself out. There are many variables in these things. Which particular period of time did you read about? (if you can remember)

    ETA: I've found some links on the 95% figure, i'll take a look at it this afternoon.
  10. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    1) This is at least partially wrong, and even if it were right, it's irrelevant with regards to this debate.

    Firstly, what you are talking about is the entire thermal infrared absorption capacity of our atmosphere. If we didn't have it, no life would ever have existed on earth. Humans contribution to global greenhouse gasses is relatively small, but human society, and life in general, is extremely sensitive to even tiny climate fluctuations.

    Secondly; Water has an effect that is variously estimated at anywhere from 40%-70% of total infrared absorption in the atmosphere, but such estimations are fraught with inconsistencies. It is certainly not 95%.

    2) Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is almost certainly at it's highest level in 800,000 years, and there is good evidence that it's close to, or at, it's highest concentration in 15 - 20 million years. How far back were you wanting to go?
  11. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    I love how everytime I say or question something, it is shouted down as 'irrelevant'.
  12. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    Apologies, it would have sufficed for me to simply explain why I thought the statistic was somewhat arbitrary. Luckily you love it, so I needn't feel too bad.
  13. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    I also love sarcasm.

    Oh, and I love you and Cutter as well.
  14. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Scotty, if you ask me, and no one has, this thread is about Climate Change rather than politics. I'd like to keep politics out of it as much as possible because, as we've seen, politics distracts from the key issue.
  15. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Politics is in everything. It is impossible to keep it out.

    (and this is in a politics sub forum by the way)
  16. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    I love you too man. I knew you were mostly hippy at heart. Deep down inside you're a vintage bike collecting, gender neutral sit-down bongo concert attending, socialist vegan.
  17. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Maybe, but it would be very, very deep down.
  18. Elfster Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    306
    What I love (or hate)about this whole "Climate Change" debate is the polarization it has generated. Especially in the media. There is a distinct difference between the Fairfax and News press on this issue. The analysis has become more and more shrill, superficial and distracted. Name calling and demonisation is now the norm rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think that abbot has helped with constant opposing of what the government has done, and a lot of the fault must lie there, but the way Gillard has responded has brought the worst out of her. She comes across as duplicitous self-serving party hack. She and Abbott were made for each other.

    Whereas the media have gone along with their favourites and used this (like a lot of other things) to use it as a point of difference and to explain the relevance. And I think Fairfax is just as bad here as News. With declining revenues and stalled or declining readership Fairfax have become a cabal of gloating self important seers who think their views should be accepted by the majority and if one doesn't believe them you are a lessor person. With News their trumpeting of issues can be over the top, but at least there is less pretence of non-partisanship than seen in Fairfax. And, at least News, or at least The Australian, do have a larger stable of reporters than Fairfax so there is far greater coverage of a news. Fairfax is too obsessed with opinion pieces.presumably it is cheaper than getting than reporting on news.

    But the whole "Climate Change" debate is rather disappointing in what it has become.
    The_Brown_Hornet likes this.
  19. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    On the politics side we should bear a few things in mind:

    1. If Howard had won the 07 election we would now have an ETS.
    2. If the Greens had voted with Rudd for his ETS instead of spitting the dummy, we would now have an ETS.

    Those that are supporters of the market based mechanism should remember that the Greens are as much (or more) at fault in the stalling of action as anyone else.
  20. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    Can't argue with that Scotty. That is very true.

Share This Page