• 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.

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
The ones I have posted links to in numerous previous posts about increasing extreme weather events (no difference compared to historical records), increased starvation in Africa due to desertification (actually a greening of the relevant parts of Africa and better crop yields), ongoing temperature rises as co2 increases (but pretty flat for about 10 or 12 years now, the "travesty" referred to in that famous email), sea level not rising any more sharply than it has historically, no impacts on precipiatation, all the bunk about glaciers being constantly contradicted and contradictory, the threat to animals like Polar Bears. Should I go on?
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
That's an interesting raft. I'm happy to go through each one when I get the time. If you can edit the post with direct/or some kind of source for each one that will make it easier.

At the end we can review what the implications are on the field of climate science.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
No more personal attacks, please.

I have let a bit slip on both sides but that last effor pushed it over the line, IS.

From now on any post that attacks another poster personally or is not specifically on the topic of climate change and its subsidiary arguments will be deleted.
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
That's an interesting raft. I'm happy to go through each one when I get the time. If you can edit the post with direct/or some kind of source for each one that will make it easier.

At the end we can review what the implications are on the field of climate science.

I have, in previous posts, provided links and information and charts and graphs and analysis. I'd love to, but I don't have the time to do it. If you're that interested, search posts by me in this thread. It's all there.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I have, in previous posts, provided links and information and charts and graphs and analysis. I'd love to, but I don't have the time to do it. If you're that interested, search posts by me in this thread. It's all there.


I think you have done this 3 times now. You seem to think you can make whatever claims you like and brush off any requests for evidence with "i posted it a few pages back". So before any of us are able to question your claims, first we must trawl through every single word you've typed in this entire thread!

The problem is, it's gotten to the point where we cannot possibly know what you are talking about unless we see some sources. "all the bunk about glaciers being constantly contradicted" - what is "all the stuff" there is an entire section of scientific literiture on glaciers, how is any onlooker supposed to know what you are on about here?

If you are really struggling for time, just stop making so many claims in this thread until you can expand a little more on them. I tried going through the list of claims you just wrote, but had to stop because I just had no idea what I was replying too.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Let me sum it up. When it comes to any scientific issue, I'll go and read what the leading journals in that field are saying. Whether it's biology, medicine, physics, climate, psychology...whatever. Just because I don't accept all the conflicting fringe theories posted in this thread doesn't mean I'm "ad-homing" them.


Why is psychology a science? Is sociology a science?
I wonder if there is a more fundamental problem here: if psychology qualifies as science it's no wonder opinion on AGW divides the world.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
I think you have done this 3 times now. You seem to think you can make whatever claims you like and brush off any requests for evidence with "i posted it a few pages back". So before any of us are able to question your claims, first we must trawl through every single word you've typed in this entire thread!

The problem is, it's gotten to the point where we cannot possibly know what you are talking about unless we see some sources. "all the bunk about glaciers being constantly contradicted" - what is "all the stuff" there is an entire section of scientific literiture on glaciers, how is any onlooker supposed to know what you are on about here?

If you are really struggling for time, just stop making so many claims in this thread until you can expand a little more on them. I tried going through the list of claims you just wrote, but had to stop because I just had no idea what I was replying too.

So why do I post things if you either don't read them or want me to post them again later on? I'm not brushing anything off. I'm just refusing to have the same argument 3 times because someone forgot or did not read an earlier post.

I was told, possibly by you, when I first wandered into this thread to go and read what came previously before I waded into territory that had already been covered. I did that. How is this any different? No-one gave me a nice potted summary of their previously stated positions with a neat list of resources and links.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
with our planet currently absorbing heat at a rate of two Hiroshima bombs per second.

In an otherwise compelling article this quote illustrates my concern about the inability of the scientifically astute to use the language to communicate with the precision that the argument deserves and requires: be it accurate or otherwise, the quote does not actually convey a meaningful comparison.

This is because the reader cannot understand whether the "2 Hiroshima bombs" are in addition to the heat which the earth has always "absorbed" or whether this is the new, albeit elevated, level of heat being absorbed. There is even a third legitimate interpretation which is that, until recently, in earth science terms, the earth absorbed no heat.

By intuition, or it may even be assumption, I can rule out the third interpretation. Of the remaining 2 one is meaningless to me and the other is alarming: if its in addition to it seems alarming...but that too could depend on what was the base to which these 2 "bombs" have been added.

Re-reading this thread this morning I became more convinced than ever that the problem here is one of communication. Unfortunately, I gather, those with the knowledge who might taken on board the complaint about the quality of communication are not listening.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
So why do I post things if you either don't read them or want me to post them again later on? I'm not brushing anything off. I'm just refusing to have the same argument 3 times because someone forgot or did not read an earlier post.

I was told, possibly by you, when I first wandered into this thread to go and read what came previously before I waded into territory that had already been covered. I did that. How is this any different? No-one gave me a nice potted summary of their previously stated positions with a neat list of resources and links.

Look, I cannot possibly understand what you are writing about if you don't go into more detail, there is so much in here on glaciers I can't dissect which discussion you are referring to. Since when is asking for sources a crime?

Next time you do this I may as well say "don't listen to Karl I've refuted what he has said many times before, those posts were probably on that list". But of course I wouldn't because that's not logical, just like what you are doing here isn't.


....

Most of this is to do with politics which I'm not that focused in this thread (i'm bored to death of the carbon tax really), but still interesting thoughts to take on board I guess.

As Scarfie likes to reiterate his point every few pages, there are number of points that both sides like to ignore.

1) How will changing the output level of CO2 at the exclusion of al the other Greenhouse gases reach the temerature reductions we seek? SOme polutants have significantly higher Greenhouse impacts than CO2 depending on the atmospheric zone of deposition. Indeed given the other impacts that CO2 concenration is predicted to have by way of altering PH, osmotic transfer at the cellular level and other effects, the increasing of the other pollutants really needs to be addressed as well.

I don't think anyone is claiming we should only slow co2. But it appears to be the Greenhouse Gas we need to focus on first, if we are to prevent major damage to the eco system in the next few centuries. If we did get our co2 pollution levels back to pre-industrial levels there would still be other pollutants in the air, but it would have nothing like the effect co2 has had on the climate in the last 50 years.

Having never lived there I wouldn't know, but countries like Sweden appear to have been taxing sulfur pollution along with co2 for decades now. Sulfur causes acid rain or something. So this concept of using market mechanisms to get rid of pollution in order to fix important issues isn't new at all. Hence why the government would see it as an easy way to get emissions down, or stop them rising. And it can be applied to all harmful pollutants over time.

2) At no point in the massive push for "renewable" energy sources has there been any significant discussion on the input fotprint to produce the renwable source. For exampe, think of the inputs required to build a wind turbine. They are genrally made from a composite of Carbon Fibre (the resins being largely derives from petrochemical sources or very highly energy intensive production) and Aluminium (a very energy intesive metal). I have read studies which have assessed the lag time for the average wind turbine to break even in regards to its carbon inputs as opsed to its carbon savings from renewable energy production as being in the vicinity of 40 years. Now as those studies were funded by the current genration operators I would suggest that the figures are a worst case scenario, but even at 30 or 25 years it is a disaster as the maximum life expectancy on one of these units is 25 years (and given the operation stresses that is optimistic). This does not taken into account the carbon inputs for maintenance and repairs etc. Considering these units cannot meet base load this is a major issue IMO that just has not been discussed at any length. Any balanced discussion would calculate the inputs for a wind turbine and its savings to present a balanced argument for their use.

I'm not familiar with this idea. Are you saying we should do the maths to check if wind turbines cause more net emissions than they save? Agreed it's definitely something for physicists to look at.

3) Urbanisation. The massive increase in urban areas is responsible for a massive "heat tank" effect raising the temperatures in major cities and town by anywhere up to 10 degress C. Where is the research and discussion regarding this, as whilst there has been a massive increase in CO2 gereation since the Industrial Rev. there has been a comensurate increase in Urbanisation. What is the impact of this on temperature.

I'm not sure this has much to do with anyone's views on climate science. I don't see a big problem with rising temps in crowded cities, we can cope with that (it doesn't rise the global temperatures). It's changes to the eco-system which are most worrying. If we see more heat waves they will wipe out crops. Making changes to the ocean might cause problems.

I don't have the data on me, but I'm pretty sure more "urbanized" cities are generally much more energy efficient, polluting less as a result. (which helps out with the major goal of slowing a rise in the greenhouse effect)

4) Population. As a alluded to a couple of pages back with an ever increasing population even limitting energy use per individual to less than half the current usage would not be sufficient to reduce the current global pollutant output. There is no political will to address this in any form, which I can understand, as what would be the reaction if one said "for the good of the planet the world's population must be reduced by half"?

I wish we addressed as well. Much more effective way of curbing emissions but too much work for lazy politicians.

Even if we did this though, I still think we should be aiming to reduce pollution locally.


I have tried to bring these issues into the debate in this thread by playing devil's advocate and posing as a non-believer, this simply does not work because contrary to Scientific thought many supporters of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) have focused all their attention on Carbon to the exclusion of all else and anybody questioning this approach or the validity and efficacy of measures like the Carbon Tax tend to get branded as unscientific etc. Whilst on the true non-believers side they peddle half truths and take great pleasure in pointing out failed predictions of Climate Changists (which I must add they were very unwise and unscientific to make as we can't predict the weather with any certainty tomorrow let alone next year).

I do not support the Carbon Tax simply because it will have no effect what so ever on the issue it seeks to address. I have always argued that a drive for efficiency in less polluting industry of all kinds would have been a better method to achieve lasting change and improve the technology of all industry. The system we now see in place is selectively funding Power Generation sources which cannot meet base load, and are likely to prove a negative Carbon (and resource generally) investment long term.

The carbon tax isn't ideal, but it's the only legislation we are going to get through anytime soon to address this issue of high co2 pollution (And in the future it can easily be applied to other greenhouse gases. ). I think it's a big stretch to say it "wont address this problem". I don't agree with a lot of the policy in this area as well, but at the moment I'd support it just to see some sort of cap put on the pollution levels.

If people oppose the carbon tax in favor of better policy, I generally agree with them. But it's not that bad of an idea to start off with IMO. My only real disagreement is with the idea we should do absolutely nothing because we are a small country (which is a view put forward by a lot of people in oz)

I only replied because I don't think anyone is really ignoring those issues. I'm not keen on discussing particular carbon taxes all over again though. Everyone else can have the last word on that.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Another point of view

Departing Future Fund boss savages carbon tax

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths
Updated March 30, 2012 13:09:10

The man who has managed the multi-billion dollar Future Fund for six years has delivered a stinging broadside to the Government's carbon pricing scheme, calling it "the worst piece of economic reform" he has ever seen.
David Murray ends his term as chairman of the fund's board on Monday.
The former Commonwealth Bank CEO has this morning told Radio National that the carbon tax is "very bad" for the Australian economy.
"If you want me to tell you my view, it is the worst piece of economic reform I have ever seen in my life in this country," he said.
"The consequence of introducing that tax at that level in Australia today is very, very bad for this economy, particularly in terms of its international competitiveness.
"It raises costs further within Australia, it reduces our competitiveness for export of energy-related commodities, and it therefore renders us less competitive in the future."
Mr Murray has previously said there is no link between carbon dioxide and global warming.
The carbon pricing scheme will come into force on July 1 and will charge the country's biggest 500 companies $23 for each tonne of carbon they produce.
After three years that fixed amount will give way to a price determined by the market.
Treasurer Wayne Swan says the carbon pricing scheme is "world's best practice".
"Mr Murray is a well-known opponent of the science of climate change," he told ABC News 24.
"I just reject what Mr Murray has had to say about this fundamental economic reform which goes to the core of our future economic prosperity.
"Big reforms like this are tough reforms, they're never easy, and you will get vested interests and people like Mr Murray out there opposing them."
"It's not a surprise to me that Mr Murray might oppose a policy of this government."
It is not the first time Mr Murray has criticised government policy.
He has previously revealed he was not in favour of the mining tax - an opinion he restated this morning.
"It was very clumsily introduced, it was very clumsily designed and the timing at the top of the terms of trade was not a good timing," he said.
He has also been critical of the Government's attack on big banks, particularly over raising interest rates.
Mr Murray says the banks have an important role in the economy.
"By jawboning their interest rates down when the international cost of funds and the domestic cost of funds has been behaving the way it is, is to render the banks less able to perform their very important role," he said.
Mr Murray would not give his view of the Government's ability to manage the economy overall.
The subject of Mr Murray's replacement recently caused a furore when the government overlooked the board's choice of former treasurer Peter Costello, appointing chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange David Gonski instead.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/departing-future-fund-boss-lambasts-carbon-tax/3922742
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Having never lived there I wouldn't know, but countries like Sweden appear to have been taxing sulfur pollution along with co2 for decades now. Sulfur causes acid rain or something. So this concept of using market mechanisms to get rid of pollution in order to fix important issues isn't new at all. Hence why the government would see it as an easy way to get emissions down, or stop them rising. And it can be applied to all harmful pollutants over time.

and it looks like an excellent model from which to draw support:

A by-product from the manufacture of low-sulphur heavy fuel oils is a residual oil with a high sulphur content, which is often exported to countries with lower environmental standards.

So Sweden taxes suflur and, in consequence, it is left with residual oil in which the sulfur content is very high...so it ships it off to another part of the world: all better!
The article also points out that Sweden's efforts to address SO2 and CO2 are thwarted by its neighbours - another insight into the problem with taxing CO2 in Australia when most of the rest of the world is not doing it.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
another insight into the problem with taxing CO2 in Australia when most of the rest of the world is not doing it.
I've never understood this argument. Surely If carbon is bad and we should stop it why would we give a fuck what other countries are doing. We can only control our own usage not the rest of the worlds.
 
H

HarveyColon

Guest
there always has and always will be the same amount of carbon dioxide on earth....it goes in a cycle so no you can't control it

australia not caring about what other countries are doing......australia is the world's bitch....we have illegal immigrants forced on us, we have resources raped by china, other countries by our land, and you think that we could be independent and ignor what other countries doing? furthermore look at australia's contribution of carbon dioxide, it's quite low.....the rest of the world is laughing at what a joke this country is becoming and unfortunately i'm with them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top