An incnvenient truth - a global warning

[Sonia]

Earthrise
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/earthrise-1.jpg
Picture take on last of apollo missions - Apollo 17 December 11th 1972. Only picture of Earth from space that we ahve where the sun was directly behind the spacecraft so that the Earth is fully lit up.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/apollo17-1.jpg
People think that because the Earth is so big we couldnt possibly do anything to it to cause the global warming. The most vulnerable part of Earth is the Earths atmosphere. because its so thin. Think of a globe with a coat of varnish on it, that is how thin the atmosphere is, and its thin enough for us to change it.
Solar radiation in the form of light waves pass through the atmosphere. Most of the radiation that comes from the sun that hits the Earth is absorbed and warms up. Some of it goes back into Space. Some also trapped into the atmosphere keeping it warm.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/sunheatingupEarth-1.jpg
The atmosphere is thickening due to the pollution which helps more of the infra red trapped in the atmosphere. So the atmosphere heats up worldwide.
Very little land mass is South of the Equator and most of it is in the nOrthern Hemisphere, same as vegetation. When the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun in spring and summer the leaves take in CO2 so the amount in global atmosphere goes down. But when it is tilted away from the sun in autumn and winter the CO2 goes up. And the level keeps going up and we are seeing the impacts.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Argentina-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Boulderglacier-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Boulderglacier-1-now-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Italy-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Italy-1-now-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/grinnelglacier1910-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/grinnelglacier1910-1-now-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/KilimajaroAfrica1970-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/KilimajaroAfrica1970-1-now-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Peru-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Peru-1-now-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/Alaska-1.jpg
When there is more carbon dioxide the temp gets warmer as it traps more heat from the sun.
The ocean temperatures have also gone up, which results in hurricanes that are more deadly
Florida - Hurricane Jean sept 04
Atlantic Ocean - Frances - Sept 04
Florida - Ivan Sept 04
Also saw record outbreak of tornadoes - 2004 - 1,717 in America
Japan - New record of typhoons - 10 in 2004
First ever hurricane in the SOuth Atlantic - Brazil - MArch 04
Caribbean - hurricane emily - July 05
Hurricane Denis - Florida July 05
Worlds largest oil platform Gulf of mexico - july 05
Hurricane Katrina August 05 - as it hit the gulf of Mexico in the warm waters it got stronger..
Global warming causes more precipitation but all in big storm events as the oceans put all the evaporation up there and more falls down.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/floodevents-1.jpg
In 2005 nature went crazy
Mumbai India July 05
37 inches of rain in 24 hours
Water levels 7 feet
Global warming also causes more draught
Lake chad has all gone
Artic and greenland are having faster impacts. The largest ice shelf in the artic cracked in half. The perma frost is thawing also. The artic ice cap has deminished 40% and 40 years. When sun rays hit the ice it melts, and as it does it also heats up the water which makes the melting faster and will keep doing so. The worldwide average temperature is about 58 degress add about 5 degrees it will be +12 at the pole.
So all the ocean currents will change.
A pool in america broke into the Atlantic into the salt water which made the gulf shut off and heat transfer stopped which caused an ice age and it took place in just 10 years time. But it cant happen again as that chunk of ice is gone.
The change is also happening in the seasons Bird arrival in switzerland 25 years ago was April 25th and the chicks hatched June 3rd. Time of the caterpillars. But 20 years of warming later the caterpillars peeked May 15th and the birds try to catch up May 25th.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/iceshelfjan31-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/iceshelffeb1702-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/iceshelffeb232002-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u186/weathergirl_photos/iceshelfmarch502-1.jpg
It happened rapidly.
If the west antartica ice sheet melt it would raise sea level 20 feet.
When these different types of consequences hapen it will bring food and water demand.
We have the ability to stop this by using other resources.

[Ric]

Great article Sonia and backed up with graphic photo's. It is my personal and sad opinion that we have gone to far now and there is no turning back the clock.
It is a sad fact though that the politicians still will not listen, there is a lot of talk going on here in Australia but that is because it's an election year and when that is over it will be forgotten for another four years.

Green and clean technology such as solar recieves little to no funding at all and as an example I use my own property, It cost me $4,000 to have coventional power put onto the farm, to have full solar installed and return power not being used back to the grid would have costed $44,000. In return for doing this the government would give me a rebate of $400 to help with the cost. If we had investested in this technology 20 years ago these type of costs would be comparable to conventional power and more people would use it, but as usual the governments of the day couldnt see past the next election and missed the boat totally.

I personally subscibe to the principles of Permaculture and believe that every little bit helps. Everyone can do this even in their own backyards, the trick is to think globally and act locally.
I dont believe that renouncing all technology and going back to the stone age will help either instead we need to use it wisely and to our advantage.

Cheers

[casstony]

I've got two street lights I'd like to turn off to help save the planet.

[xelasnave]

Human pollution is a sad thing and yes something should be done, but so is starvation, slavery, oppression, injustice, drug addiction, drunkenness, domestic violence.. but why try to manage those are they too hard or is it that they don’t turn a quid;) .
Historic Climate Change is just that .Sonia has taken the trouble to show much evidence that it is with us now:thumbsup: . there can be no argument on that.. but even those facts are being used by vested interests to make humans feel they are the only cause.. But what we face is a change in the climate that history shows us is a fact of living on this planet..Can we fix it with nuclear power yes of course we can (not) .. Can we fix it with unbridled gluttony ..why of course we can (not) .. Can we take from this planet and never give back ..why of course we can (not)... Can we sprout our concerns leaning out of the window of a limo on the way to our private jet ????..... hypocrisy means you are a caring person doesn’t it???:lol: :lol: :lol:
.
Could the concern of our politicians go past buying nuclear power and desalinators to implement a program to see less waste of energy..less energy wasted means less omissions and that what we all want is it not? Well the market system fails us here because power companies and oil companies want us to use more power not less. I am silly enough to wish they could act in our interests not vested interests:screwy: .
.
The well informed say we need to reduce green house gas as much as we can (a target of 40% reduction’s was seen as optimistic but needed) and even that optimistic reduction will never never stop the Historic Climate Change we are experiencing now:scared: . Experts see any reduction as simply buying a little more time.. nothing more:scared: .. but the real issue is the climate is getting hotter and we need to address the big issues that arise from dealing with a hotter planet..do these experts think nuclear power is the answer..definitely not as that really avoids addressing the real issue and wasting investement on a finite resourse. As a finite fuel with a world monopoly on fuel supply for the planet nuclear fuel will become more expensive , that is how a market works.. look at oil is it getting cheaper as supplies run lower?:shrug: . We must accept that the planets climate is changing and realistically prepare for that time which does not mean simply buying nuclear power:) .

We can not stop Historic Climate Change. It is very doubtful that we can even get humans to reduce greenhouse by even 40% (which is at best a stalling tactic) The facts that say bigger issues need to be addressed not just spend our cash on band aids sold by opportunists of the Sky is Falling Corporation. This is what “not real “ experts are saying who also say nuclear power is not an answer but will add to the problem. There are other folk out there who see the opportunity to sell nuclear power and desalination plants trying to pass off that buying their products will stop Historic Climate Change or “Global Warming”. They are opportunists ready to take advantage of a very serious problem that their products will not fix:mad2: . .
If Nuclear Power is the answer the uranium mines in Australia must be nationalized:D . Does Australia still own the yellow cake:shrug: ..mmm I doubt it.. Nationalize the mines and I bet the global warming won’t be in our face every day because the vested interests will see no profit. I mean how ridiculous we have the most important fuel on the planet and we don’t control it we only get to store the waste.
alex

[OneOfOne]

The thing that we must keep in mind with any form of "alternate" energy is the big picture of energy payback. If it takes more energy overall to make an alternate energy source than it will create in its lifetime, we should not do it. Quoting financial payback periods is not relevant in the equation.

eg. Energy payback:
To create a solar cell we need to take into account how much energy is needed to mine the sand, purify it to create the silicon, mining of the metals to make the conductors, the metal frames, the protective glass, the backing material that the cells sit on, the glues and other materials, the cost of transport of all this stuff etc. Also add in the cost of keeping them clean and running efficiently. ONLY if the equation produces a net energy profit should we implement it on a larger scale.

Financial payback:
The financial payback may be 10 years for something like this, but that is only because these sources (cells, wind turbines, wave technology platforms etc) are manufactured using (often non renewable) power on an industrial scale, which is purchased at a much lower price. So if a solar panel was to cost $1000 today, but the cost of the energy to produce it where to be purchased cheaper and so the SAME panel could now retail for $800, the financial payback would now be 8 years. The energy payback would still be the same and, in the big scheme, this is the only part of the equation that will determine if the impact on the environment is lessened.

We would be foolish to burn up huge quantities of fossil fuels just to create solar cells to replace the fossil fuels for electricity generation, if the cells then "died" before they produced the amount of energy it took to make them. This does not mean we can't continue into research to find better alternatives, even at a net energy debt, but we must be careful not to implement a solution on a mass scale until we know the answer to this equation.

The other problem is that no-one seems to want any of these solutions in their backyard. When was the last time we saw in the paper that a comunity has welcomed a couple of hundred wind generators along their coast or mountain ridge? Unfortunately, they are best suited for locations that also have "great views". They do not perform well at the bottom of a valley stuck down below the tree line!

[glenc]

I read yesterday that the average Australian household generates 14 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. This breaks down as follows:
34% on travel, 16% on water heating, 15% on electronic appliances (TV etc), 11% on major appliances (Fridge etc), 11% on heating & cooling, 5% on wastes, 5% on lighting and 3% on cooking. What can we do to reduce our GHG emissions? Buy a smaller car? Install a solar HWS? Install grid solar power?

[xelasnave]

It amuses me that if ever solar looks like raising its head there are all the reasons why it wont:) work however if we mention nuclear them we hear all the reasons it will work:) and yet none of the reasons why it wont work;) , or do we hear how the price of nuclear fuel because it will be a world monopoly without any completion whatsoever will be very expensive:scared: ..To say otherwise fails to recognize the forces of the market..A then world market..;)
AND if talking about alternative energy supply the cost of energy to produce it is the first thing placed up against before it finally being fast dismissed:) .
It amuses me that installing desalinators that require high maintenance with pumps and the units to service and enjoy an ever escalating fuel bill to manage are better than dams that have an initial capital cost yet are not dependant on high maintenance and ever rising fuel bills:) ..And dams last longer than machinery:shrug: :) . If also find it strange that a dam can be less attractive than a plant:) . I find it strange that real measures to reduce green house can not be implemented:sadeyes: :whistle: :) . Turn off the lights..Simple things..Look at real war time ww2:) :) :) .. there was no buldust then a foe was met with belts tightened and the problem faced.
When experts say nuclear is not the way to go why are they not listened to:shrug: .
This Historic Climate change resulting in global warming can be addressed in many ways yet only two are on the table..two very expensive ineffective solutions:shrug: :) . We may well need those solutions but vested interests are moving our eye off the ball by not stating the real problem..it is going to happen ..not we can sortta fix it..so why waste money on desalinatotrs which will require expensive maintence and expensive fuel be it solar, nuclear, or oil supplied.
I am not about sinking all ships I am about floating all ships:) :thumbsup: . I have changed my views in many ways but looked into this a lot and not all opinions get public view. There is a lot of mis information in all camps.. that’s not bad that’s the way it is:) ... If one wants to do something the first thing is become informed. Simple if you care that’s a starting place:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
Alex

[Karls48]

I agree with everything that OneOfOne posted. I was going to get to Energy payback in previous tread but it was closed.
I also agree with Alex. There was a proposal to build new dam in Blue Mountains about 20 years ago. Greenies put up such a political pressure on government that it never went ahead. If that dam had been build then Sydney would not need desalination plant.

[casstony]

Blind freddy can see that we will be using sunlight more directly in the future, since it is the original source of our current power generation. How do we make our leaders invest more taxpayer dollars to get the technologies developed more quickly?

[xelasnave]

When I lived on the river down at Mt White a guy was selling a property and it had heaps of spring water, its everywhere:eyepop: ..Remember "Neverfail Spring Water" that was it:) another spot on the hill 4 klms away but it is the same water..Neverfail are getting it outta West of Gosford now hopefully from another spring:) ...Wonder what it costs to pump spring water as oppossed tp sea water:shrug: , The springs are apparently fed from the Northern Territory so someone said:shrug: ..I dont know about that but I do know there is something no one has looked at:) ..
As to being efficient with energy thats a joke:lol: :lol: :lol: ..it really is a joke:mad2: :) . How about canning all car racing to make up the short fall, smaller cars, no private air craft, no mega boats, no petrol cars within a 4 klm radius of the CBD, oh and how about turning off some lights:) ... one could make a list before we get into trying to can alternative energy:) .
I have seen the formula to justify anything:whistle: .. gee if you are half smart with a spead sheet you can made it say what you want:) . So those formuleas dont wash with me I am afraid:shrug: :) . Give me the figures and I will show you why a desalination plant is economically unviable..anything really:) . Still my point is if we are going nuclear lets make sure we control it all..the money:) , the selling:) , the shipping:) etc etc not just become the guy who rents the shop to store his empty boxes;) . I recon Australia is able to make a lot of cash out of all this, we are good at solar :) and nuclear stuff:) . But will we get anything out of it:shrug: .. well I bet we end up buying our fuel just like anybody else:shrug: .
Has anyone asked who owns the yellow cake:shrug: ? I dont know who does:shrug: ? I dont know that anyone worried about global warming have asked the question:shrug: Has anyone considered the monopoly who ever has the rights to the mines will have:shrug: ? The resulting price:shrug: . Being realistic involves considering the position 25 yrs down the track;) ..want me to paint the real picture as I see it:D ..it will be reasonable but if you think about it what part of what I say is nonsence:shrug: . Now dont be unkind:lol: :lol: :lol: We all know that monolopoly is what the Government is against:eyepop: ..look at the number of phone companies;) ..oh change of direstion on monopoly policy:D . AND I wont resort to calling anyone not real I think offerring a few alternatives in fact being a lust a little bit little real. Ask yourself how did we go one week lets have a debate on nuclear to this is where they are going does not raise a conspiration proposition relating to global warming:shrug: ..which is after all Historic Climate Change:) .
Why are brilliant people in the field being disregarded:shrug: ?
And Greenies are suckers for being sold a Pup they play right into the hands of global warmers and folk who want to do something in the name of progress;) ..they were reved up to attack coal power and now find themselves in a hard place and marginalised wondering why and how:whistle: .
Just look at the material that flows everywhere at the moment:scared: ..is it coming for concerned citizens who cant afford petrol:shrug: .. Dont think so.
alex

[xelasnave]

AND if we get our act together consider this little fact...
Almost 850 coal-fired energy plants planned by China (562), India (213) and the U.S. (72) over the next few years -- none covered by Kyoto -- will pump an estimated five times more carbon dioxide into the air than Kyoto removes, even if every other country hits its 2012 emission targets, which they won't:eyepop: :scared: :sadeyes: .
That says to me we better get "real";) .
alex

[Ric]

This is very true OneOfOne, our rural area was due to have a test farm built but some elements of the community kicked such a stink about property values to the local member it was eventually canned apparently these people thought white dots on the horizon were an eyesore.
These people also complained for the same reason about a microwave tower as well and as a result of that I still have no mobile reception at all. Hope I dont have an accident in the back paddock.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

One on One you hit the nail on the head for sure:thumbsup: . Wind generation which is a perfect solution to supplement grid power is sidelined because of people’s individual greed;) . I can understand the importance of a home owner’s equity more than most people I recon because I got it every day, day in day out:D ...but fair enough change will affect many people but that’s the way it goes:) . Or we could sit back and do nothing or buy into an unsuitable alternative to the exclusion of all others:shrug: .. not "real" or "very real" I am not sure but as the PM said if we don’t face the problem we are for it:scared: .. As an x real estate agent I shudder to think how nuclear power plants and desalinators will destroy millions of Mums and Dad's home equity:eyepop: . So that is a matter of compensation not a matter of "we do"or "do not".. The Dept of Main roads now pays compensation for affected property as well as the ones they actually resume:thumbsup: . why not similar if you live near a proposed nuclear power plant:eyepop: or a wind turbine farm:eyepop: :D . Money makes it better always;) ... But if nuclear power stations are the go or wind turbines you cant let the interests of a few stand in the way of the greater good otherwise there would be no freeways:eyepop: , ever tried to sell a home on a main road:whistle: ? Maybe we should have no grid power:eyepop: ..try to sell a house under a transmission line;) ..very very difficult, try to sell a house under the flight path:scared: .. again no one really likes that sort of thing..but that’s modern life:) . So I can’t see that people saying they don’t like the sound of wind turbines put the idea on the skids:) ..If this is let happen we had better remove the trains :eyepop: (people don’t like buying near the sound of trains) and the airport:eyepop: (who like being under the flight path?) and of course my pet hate in Sydney Choppers;) .. try driving you car with that noise and you are inviting a defect notice.
So lets keep options on the table and not remove them for noise pollution or we won’t have a modern world and a more energy efficient one and that means global warming.. All are wringing their hands but eliminate all ideas but nuclear:) ..think about what is going on there..I think I would prefer living near a wind turbine farm as unpleasant as that may be rather than living near a near quiet nuclear power plant:shrug: .. That’s just me but I would be confident that any of the folk in the proposed sites for nuclear power may be on my side if they were given the alternative:) ..but they missed having the debate we were going to have like every other Australian I guess:shrug: .
The problem is grave so we are told ..global warming:scared: ..but when you realise it is also better called Histroic Climate Change:eyepop: :scared: :scared: :scared: that is when you start saying what the heck if someone complaints about the noise pay them off and lets get it done.:thumbsup: Many issues cloud th epicture and calling "it" global warming" serves the interests of a few as it is proposed it is all humans fault well if it is we are doomed cause you wont change greenhouse except by billions dying ,,and the ones that are left wil still do nothing. But if its recognised as historic maybe we can manage the problems by real preparation real planning not more bandaids to make others fabulously wealthy with rights to a world wide monopoly:) . You need competition or thats what we have been told until now;)

alex

[xelasnave]

and tidal power? well we managed sewage out flows into the ocean again you cant let the vested interests of a few govern the common good be they with nuclear power, wind farms or even solar collection.
alex

[Sonia]

People think that climate change/global warming is a small thing, they need to look at this again as it is bringing consequences to our everyday lives.
There are many things that we can do to stop this and are easy to do!

Start to walk, dont just get in the car to go down the road to the shop. Carbon emissions produce 20%.
Use compact fluorescent light bulbs. These energy-efficient bulbs help fight climate change because they reduce the amount of fossil fuels that utilities burn. You will save 100 pounds of carbon for each incandescent bulb that you replace with a compact fluorescent, over the life of the bulb.
Recycle more! Plastic, glass, metal and so on . For instance, you’ll save two pounds of carbon for every 20 glass bottles that you recycle. Recycling paper also saves trees and lets them continue to reduce climate change naturally as they remain in the forest, where they remove carbon from the atmosphere. If you own a car, it will get better gas mileage when the tires are fully inflated, so it will burn less gas and emit less carbon. Check your automobile monthly to ensure that the tires are fully inflated. Follow this tip and save 300 pounds of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 miles you drive. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and use it as their energy source, producing oxygen for us to breathe. A tree in the temperate zone — found between the tropics and the polar circles—can remove and store 700 to 7,000 pounds of carbon over its lifetime. A tree that shades a house can reduce the energy required to run the air conditioner and save an additional 200 to 2,000 pounds of carbon over its lifetime. Heating and air conditioning draw more than half of the energy that a home uses in the United States. Turn down the heat or air conditioning when you leave the house or got to bed. You can easily install a programmable thermostat that can save up money and carbon. If you shop at a supermarket, the food you buy may travel in a plane from the other side of the world, burning fossil fuels the entire trip. Shop at a local farmers’ markets and you will find fresh and healthy food, and help save our climate.

[xelasnave]

Good on you Sonia:thumbsup:
So many people don’t practice what they preach I know you are concerned and bet you do what you personally can. When you look at the traffic flows around most cities and ask if we could not have electric cars all cry that they need the power, range is hardly a problem for most city drivers, where do they need this power I ask when you are lucky to get the thing up to 60 klms/hour before you come to a stop for another wait. It amuses me seeing the v8s with one person at the wheel, the many 4wds that never never will see the conditions they were built for ..the owners mistakenly believing they will be safer in a big vehicle in a smash. Look at your Land Rovers plenty of windows to let twisted metal intrude in an accident.
There is a list of real things that can be done I saw on another site (Tirock posted it) a list made by a Canadian Journalist which suggests many ways to minimize the problem just by less gluttony.. and when you think about it gluttony is the key to the problem. Have you worked out how much carbon is released in a season of formula one racing..let alone the many many classes in car racing today..and whets the point of it? Men trying to show they are better than another at a mindless game..They would not have it but car racing is the same as sitting at a computer playing space invaders. Repetition makes you better we know that so why bother. Consider the tyres that are consumed in car racing in one event.and the cost of energy to produce same..yet when one mentions solar panels you get this..what about energy cost to produce them..nuclear is more efficient. We are being snowed, and fortunately everyone I am talking to are saying the same thing... someone is selling something otherwise why is there so much "news" about it. Even a kid the other day pointed out.."but the Great Barrier Reef has been thru this sort of thing how will getting that horrible nuclear power save it when it has saved itself many times over when it was hot in the past" ..and that’s a kid who you would think did not understand but he did not buy the snow job.
The nuclear power people by using this to sell power stations is as I said causing people to take their eye off the real problem.. much much more needs to be done to prepare for a world that will be hotter.. Your PM in an effort to grab headlines came out recently with a call for more paper work to manage things but really what a poor lead he gives to seriously address the problems.
If you consider the movement of millions of people relocating to new areas one would think matters of infra structure would be high on the agenda:shrug: .. no that is seen as a military problem.. that does not add up to me. People that will lose their homes are to be treated unkindly it seems by a "stay where you are and die approach". It upsets me greatly that vested interests are putting the human race in harms way simply to gather even more wealth to enjoy even a higher level of gluttony. What can we do to bring them to heel. We need to talk about it to every friend we have and point out how they are being conned into thinking stupid measures will solve the problem. What I find very comforting is the way the propaganda is being seen for what it is and yet most people are concerned with the un necessary pollution:thumbsup: .
Keep up the good work, keep informed, don’t buy crap and tell your friends.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Black roofs are the fashion here. How harder an air cond. has to work to remove that un necessary heat build up. Could not councils change the building code to out law them. Simple but there is no will unfortunately.
alex

[xelasnave]

The truth hurts they say and I bet this would hurt some but this is the article Tirock posted elsewhere by the Canadian Journalist.... some could be heeded and think of the reduction...
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, Toronto Sun, February 22, 2007

I applaud the many rock stars and other celebrities who are helping former U.S. vice-president Al Gore stage seven "Live Earth" concerts around the world on July 7, to alert us to the dangers of global warming.

As long as every one of these Captain Kyotos signs the following pledge:

"I (insert name here) accept that as a multi-millionaire who has profited enormously from our consumer-driven culture, I have become a poster (insert gender here) boy/girl for excessive and conspicuous consumption, and that I am therefore disproportionately responsible for man-made global warming.

"I promise to take the following steps immediately, both to set an example to others and to reduce my carbon imprint on the Earth.

(1) Since cars are a major contributor to global warming, I will sell all the vehicles I own, donating the proceeds to a worthy environmental charity and replace them with one car -- a small hybrid with no air conditioning. Of course I will take public transit whenever possible.

(2) Since houses are major emitters of greenhouse gases, I will sell all the mansions and other residences I own around the world and donate the proceeds to environmental causes. For my personal use, I will purchase one home in the country of which I am a citizen of no more than 2,000 square feet, still giving me a level of privacy and luxury unknown to the people of the Third World, who have suffered enormously due to my excessive, personal contribution to man-made global warming throughout my career.

(3) Since flying is devastating to the climate because it injects greenhouse gases directly into the atmosphere at high altitudes, I will never again fly for pleasure anywhere in the world, including in my own jet or in one chartered for me. If I must fly for my work, I will restrict myself to regularly-scheduled commercial flights, substituting more environmentally-friendly train or bus travel whenever possible.

(4) I will never again claim to be "carbon neutral" merely because I made a donation to some group that plants trees, since such programs are increasingly suspect in terms of their effectiveness and because this would be a continuation of my refusal to accept personal responsibility for the disproportionate environmental damage my extravagant lifestyle has caused.

(5) I will never again go on a shopping spree in New York, L.A., London, Paris, Rome, Hong Kong or anywhere else, thus freeing myself from unnecessary possessions that require the burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuels both to create and to transport around the globe.

(6) Since locally-produced food and drink generate fewer greenhouse gases than those imported from abroad, I will consume only domestically-produced food, water and alcohol, including champagne.

(7) When taking vacations, I will confine myself to locales that are within driving distance of my home. Never again will I fly to any exotic, five-star resort, whose very existence is a grotesque monument to conspicuous consumption, one which could not have been built without the excessive burning of fossil fuels.

8. Finally, I will never again permit my music or image to be used to sell any commercial product, to show that we must all simplify our lives in order to reduce our carbon footprint and save the Earth."

I can't wait to see who signs up. Can you?

end of snip.
alex

[Ric]

Hi Alex, I will be very interesting to see who does sign the pledge.

Cheers

[glenc]

There is plenty of solar energy available on a sunny day, something like 20 mega joules per square metre per day.
(One kWhr is 3.6 MJ.) See: http://www.bom.gov.au/sat/solrad.shtml

The problem is storing it so you can use it at night. Here are some ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage

[astro_nutt]

Here's a few things the local Government can do right now to show some action!
1. Remove/turn off every 2nd streetlight..except at intersections.
2. Legisation that all industrial and domsetic indoor/outdoor lighting be either Fluro or LED.
3. Provide half-fare public transport for workers in the CBD.
4. Reward those who reduce their power/fuel consumption.
5. Water companies to provide a scheme to fit watertanks where possible with the option to pay off the costs via the water bill over an agreed period.
The money saved from the first idea will more than pay for the others..
Cheers!

[Ric]

A quick thought, a result of global warming is an increase in cloud cover therefore as amateur astronomers we have the most to lose out of this deal.

Now that is something to worry about, less viewing and imaging.

[matt]

Not a bad film/doco.

The cynic in me can see old Uncle Al Gore paving the way for another tilt at the White House.

With global warming and saving the planet the "hottest" ticket in town, he's very well positioned to cash in, politically.

But that's just the cynic in me speaking.

Good on him, anyway. We need people like him, who were once key players in the Administration, coming out and saying these things and spreading the word, as somewhat belated as it may be.

[xelasnave]

It will be interesting to see what we buy next week or what money the Government will put to investigations by a fairdinkum committee to push the alternatives;) . Big add tonight;) to get everyone looking to the falling sky:) . And as to the nuclear thing let’s milk it dry and sell Uranium to the world if it’s cheap energy and use our other huge energy options and creativeness, and cash in on it and not becoming buyers of our own stock:) . . But we should not forget that the reason some say we are in the current mess is because of the availability of cheap energy. More air conditions will put heat into the atmosphere but Mr Average thinks he cans use his air conditioner if they go nuclear ..Because the “adds: have produced such a result.
alex

[glenc]

Th attached pdf file gives some interesting statistics by a man who sells solar energy.
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
Alex, an air conditioner is a heat pump, it just transfers heat from inside to outside.

[xelasnave]

"will put heat into the atmosphere" Glen I mean the energy to run them creating the gases we all worry about, not the heat exchange, as they are currently put up as the reason why we have back outs around here:) ..personally I think it probably goes deeper but thats a good cop out ..a run down system would not enter into the back outs would they??:shrug: AND black outs tend to cause one to focus on the possibilities on the table whatever they are;) . Its as though one is being told consume more not be efficient.. again the solution is almost here so we need not worry:) .
Interesting stats on actually having a real input from solar and the other info thanks for links.. The Duboo Zoo has a fantasic array and get much of their energy from same.
One thing is for sure I think the problem also contains an element of gloutony that needs to be addressed:shrug: . Real cut backs rationing:scared: if the market cant control its drive. And a few of the suggestions provided herein adopted but a market economy depends on consumption to grow and to sustain its future..not saying that is wrong but it means if you have the money you become wasteful..big cars, homes, too much of everything much of which need not be consumed but require energy to produce.
The will of the people is to fix it but not many will leave a Government in power if they cut out v8s and air conditioners;) .. so it comes down unfortunately to personal responisibilitiy and not many can be personally responsible... big problem which ever power sources are used.. I bet we are the first species to use up all the available energy from the Sun to keep our life styles:lol: :lol: . Sooner or later the Sun will be our only source of energy as it always has been in the past:) ..be it oil or coal or timber or wind or tides it is all finally Solar:) .. nuclear is the odd one out really.
But lets sell all we have got and buy more solar panels:thumbsup: , more wind turbines:thumbsup: , more tidal generator plants:thumbsup: and more hydro plants:thumbsup: to take up the slack that will be left when the nuclear fuel runs out:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex
alex

[Argonavis]

You mean not a bad piece of science fiction/junk science


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5 MGEwZTFhM2E=

[matt]

I found it reasonably engaging and entertaining.

I didn't say I swallowed it hook, line and sinker;)

[Ric]

A very interesting article Glen, thanks for sharing.
I find the the whole idea of carbon sequestration a bit of a joke, the govt is going to spend millions to look into the feasability of the technology to achieve this. Assuming that they can and that the correct geologic strata is found the the logistics of transporting CO2 arises. Any such plant and subsequent technology is still a minimum of 20 years away.
The money would be better spent in developing solar power.

Cheers

[glenc]

This might be interesting: Four Corners
8.30pm – 9.20pm ABC Monday 26 February 2007
Behind the campaign to deny the science of global warming...

[xelasnave]

Carbon sequestration is another con job:) ..It is that simple..An excuse to move money is what it boils down to.. I heard our Government is going to spend $500,000,000-00 on this impossible dream:eyepop: . There is absolutely no plausible evidence to support the notion.. non whatsoever.. any one who cares to look can see same but because their gaze is firmly fixed on the falling sky, they don’t;) . If all the carbon is successfully removed by such a system (and that is impossible in the extreme) we still have a situation that the planet is warming so what is the point other than moving money from the people’s pockets to vested interests that are behind this global warming lobby:shrug: .. the global warming lobby is about one thing and one thing only …making money out of a scare campaign that chicken littles buy. We are the stupid chicken littles and each and every one of us should feel firstly stupid and vulnerable. Remember the Y2K bug?? Remember the folk storing food for the day riots broke out because the system would break down if something was not done..where did the money go mmm same place as the bug went to hide.? We should feel indignation that we are treated with such distain. However we deserve to have such tricks played upon us because we do nothing to stand up for truth by not taking the time to simply think about the bulldust we are fed and stupidly consume:) .
When you see Mr Gore working his lift to find the figures that “are off the chart” ask yourself is this science??? well as a “salesman” I can tell you yes it is “science” ..the “science of selling”. Rule of selling draw extreme examples to make your point.
The con now is to sell us nuclear power stations and desalinates, we hear the “science” we see the pictures and we feel the guilt. AND make no mistake it will happen the deal has been done all they are doing now is to convince the unsuspecting chicken littles they were the ones that had the idea.. Geez I have sold houses to people who were on their way home from holidays and stopped for a coffee and thought they would have a look in the agent’s window.. they did not know they wanted to live in my town until “sold” the idea;) . AND if I could sell 10 houses Mr Gore could sell 100 he is the best salesman I have seen in operation:thumbsup: . So what is he selling I don’t see his operation as that of a concerned citizen spending his wealth to help the world.. Maybe the US public will thrust him into the White House because he is a caring person as that is the image to run with given he is so concerned with global warming. Does he really care ..yes about what is good for him and his.. think otherwise and you are a fool.
And our pollies must see the value in the global warming bulldust given the way they are eager to spend our money so quickly and in the face of a 50% opposition, opposition that they take care to use every opportunity to marginalise.… no opponent to any idea deserves to be labelled “not real” before the argument has started. Can’t beat them with the facts as they are cooked so let’s just call the opponents crazy..I would like to be as crazy as the experts who say the problem is stated incorrectly..smart people who have done their homework are not “not real” …but using that term calls into question their undisputable scientific findings. . obviously no debate on nuclear power took place or was ever expected to take place as the sites for power stations must have already been available given how fast they were released after the PM’s statement. But don’t get me wrong I like John Howard and think he is a good man it is sad to see him manipulated this way and forced to make such press releases to satisfy a strong lobby, it is personally upsetting. I always saw him as a decent man with the gutz to stand up for what is right:eyepop: .. That is unfortunately very silly of me (and others) as no man can remain that strong in the face of the lobby group that has set upon him. Who was the crew who came up with the nuclear sites any ways..I know it had “Commonwealth” in the title which would suggest a Government body but was it??:shrug: I doubt it. Who was chosen to “head” this group?And if not a Government body how come they can use the term “Commonwealth” in their title… that is not allowed at law. How can someone get such a name registered I question:shrug: .
One hears horror stories about Russian subs rotting in dock the nuclear fuel threatening to leak away with no one prepared to anything about it..
With this Global Warming nonsense one wonders two things..Are these rumours with any foundation? Are they being started so money can be spent to clean up a non existent problem? Well if not rumours and this is happening, how can the nuclear lobby say to us that nuclear has no problems:shrug: .
Is this the world they expect us to happily except?. All Governments have a tendency to screw up when dealing with real issues. Can no one see a future where a Government will not act to fix up a nuclear problem because it costs too much and the committee has not released its report on what should be done.. and one thinks given the committee recommendations the Governments of the world would follow the expert findings.. well they don’t.. it surprises me that all think there will be no problems..in the perfect world yes there will be no problems, but I am sorry to be the one to break the news we do not live in a perfect world..corruption greed and self serving promotion of vested interests rule the play. Well common folk have to look after their self interest also not leave it in the hands of self serving gluttons..protect our cash, protect our reasonable views from brain washing by one of the best salesmen on the planet and protect our future.
I was wrong the big add is next week ..so get ready for a week of more doom and gloom.. but don’t get hit by any falling sky even us chicken littles can think if we take the time.
See if you can get a letter in opposition published this week. Look for the claims to reinforce your guilt of heating the planet. Just look and you will see it all unfold as I suggest… but I would be very very happy to be wrong on this but I got money to say I wont be and would even back my view with an odds on bet… and I never do that.
AND if we go nuclear why, why why will we not reap the benefits but be called upon to live in a polluted country thats only role is to bury the waste and supply the mine sites.
Why is there no talk that the fuel be nationalised? Should it not be nationalised for control and benefit of the people of this country?. Makes sense to me but I am sure there will be many experts come forward to say that is a silly idea...mmm exactly what part of such an idea is silly?? Do we need these things controlled by private concerns as they know whats better for us than our Government? Does it strike at the free market and cause investors to go elsewhere..I leave that to you to decide.

Alex

[xelasnave]

I am sorry that my posts are so long and that the moderators are put to reading so much to make sure its ok to print.
alex

[OneOfOne]

I believe tidal/wave power is an excellent alternative. When I was in NZ about 10 years ago, the tour went to some place where there was a narrow stretch of land that separated the Pacific on one side and Tasman on the other. As a result, there was a difference in water level of several meters. They were experimenting with simply letting the water from one side flow to the other through a turbine...what a brilliant idea. Water is so much denser than air I don't know why they don't spend more money on it. The technology is similar to existing hydroelectric except the available pressure would be less, a few meters of head of water. At least it should be possible to mount the generators under water or in a cave or something, which would be easier to get people to accept than a heap of turbines on the hillside.

[glenc]

An interesting device.
Energetech’s Wave Energy Generator off Port Kembla
http://www.energetech.com.au/index.htm?http://www.energetech.com.au/content/port.html

[xelasnave]

One on One..
Out of any approach tidal power seems to me probably to offer a great deal of hope. But so many of the alternatives are sidelined for various reasons and the problem of needing more energy that does not polute further remains. Sad when one sees projects like the one Glen posted (as well as the solar links) simply not being pushed harder.
I had a little laugh when I read that Glen's post about the wave system shows that it has a desalinator built in... mmm maybe we wont need the nuclear power stations for desalination after all... I know I know too expensive but this is a proto type it is not there to supply all of Australia it is there to show what else can be done when creative Australians get to work on a problem..We are the worlds leading inventors ..did you know that ..more per capita than anywhere else..and that does not take into account any of mine:lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe an underwater dam is not such a silly idea and I suspect that with a two dam system power generation would be an easy inclusion.:)
The wave system no doubt does not need to be on a boat but it shows the energy available in a renewable source when one applies some cash to making it work.
Many alternatives are available and the question we should be asking of our Government all the time is why all the alternatives are not followed up.
I wonder if the wave system has received $500,000,000-00 to fund investigation as apparently has the carbon sequestration program enjoyed.. given that it can keep more carbon out of the air than the carbon sequestration move can ever ever achieve:eyepop: if any disagree thats fine but there are question and issues to deal with besides nuclear power..if the wave system has not received similar support we could ask why has it not received such support..its pretty "real" to my view.. so anyone not considering its application may find themselves being labled "not real"...some alternative energy supplies will be dead ducks and some will be winners, that the way things go.. but to give up because some lobby group leans on you is unforgivable ...those in power forget that voters often dont forgive until a Government has been in opposition for a long long time..
If $500,000,000 has bee allocated to carbon sequestration I wonder how much money has been tagged for other alternatives...must be double that you would think:lol: :lol: :lol: As if ..someone must have some figures they have come across I would again love to be proved wrong and that I am just a suspicious old fella seeing demons that do not exist.
Up here once there was a 50% subsidy for solar gear for prople with no alternative but petrol generators because of no grid power..that could of helped as a an excellent proto type having a community happy to work out the problems that will be found implementing this new approach.. but the subsidy has been reduced.more folk go with petrol and diesel now , I wonder why??.presumably the Government needs to save money to fund the carbon sequestration investigations..the investigation where to place nuclear power plants, trips overseas by outgoing Premiers to cement the deal already made that we have yet to be convinced will be best for us... give me the strenght to hold back the indignation and pick the pieces of fallen sky out of my brain.
alex
alex

[glenc]

Lots of info here:
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser04/overview.asp

[xelasnave]

That’s at great link Glen:thumbsup: . Had a little laugh when I saw “bio mass” I have not read it all yet but I bet that’s a scheme to collect our rubbish and get us to pay for it:) . Or to get an extra buck outta the trees grown to save the planet (from running out of paper):) :thumbsup: .
Heck I hope I am not turning “Green”:eyepop: but if think of the worm farm in Lismore at length you may understand my little laugh when I see some of the ventures as yellow cake is not the only one going for it as they say;) . But its clear to me that we will get nuclear and if we are to stand behind the product we sell we should really use it:) , and use it to our advantage;) . I mean cigarette companies boards of directors all smoke I imagine:shrug: ,.. well if they don’t I would think about that;) … and if they do I bet they get their smokes free:lol: :lol: :lol: . Mr Howard said he would live next to a power station :) .. mmm he is in tune as a ex lawyer he would know the things like power lines , main roads, flight paths, railway lines, overlooking a factory complex and even power stations do stop saleability of property.. always difficult to sell irrespective of frequent price reduction to attract a buyer..That is not “not real” that is the real world:) .
So if the world cant be perfect I ask what are we the Mums and Dads going to get in return for letting this happen:shrug: . Compensation for being sold a pup:) . Free water?:) Cheap transport, :) good education,:) security, a good health system,:) human security:) .. you bet that’s the way it works;) :) :) :) .
Alex

[mickoking]

I think Al Gore rocks but sadly he had crap advisor's when he was the US vice President, he could have done much, much more back then. But I do hope he gives the presidential contest another go, all the other candidates are same old, same old.

Sadly I am of the belief that change has to be legislated, from the pollies. I think too many of us are not prepared to change our life styles voluntarily to help solve the problem of global warming. Thank you unrestrained consumerism.

[glenc]

Is the US a democracy? It costs $millions to run for president, then the president is controlled by the people who donated the millions! And he has a veto!
Is Australia a democracy? Basically the media owners "tell" people how to vote. The winners in this years NSW & Federal elections will be the people the media owners want in office. :(

[glenc]

Here are some ideas:
http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/clean_energy_future_report/

[xelasnave]

The best thing to keep democracy is strangly is to have more lawyers but to include a civil free legal fee system.. equality before the law turns on cash behind you. I am sick of seeing folk wiped out because of a legal battle.. winning and still downed by the bill. But as bad as it is humans can not at the moment invent better that manages their gluttony. Feast or famine.. not much different to any animal really.

alex

[casstony]

The only way to improve our democracy is to have better educated voters who will be less susceptible to manipulation at election time. Theoretically a black ******* who likes to wear a sombrero should be able to be elected as PM provided a critically thinking electorate agreed with her policies. I'm not sure how to achieve this though; maybe philosophy classes in secondary school?

[xelasnave]

What was glossed over at school when we learnt about democracy and its start attributed to Greece was the fact that only a few of Greeks were included in the game;) .
The net is levelling the playing field trying to control votes is not the only way to manage power:) . Eveyone can help if they believe they can:) . AND I would like to think that when in power they act for the common good.. mmm back to the future to find the concept better devloped I think:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex

[Ric]

We didn't even get democracy classes in school when I was there.
All I got was English history and the Feudal system and I learn't more anyway from watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

history is a very good thing to look at:thumbsup: , however most think the mistakes of earlier peoples as just "history":D but we can learn much of ourselves today;) . All throught human history people have been rallied for this and that ..thats the system really..the Lord provides security and gets paid well for doing it using the energy excessivley of those he is there to protect:) . Nothing wrong with that either as long as the Lord does the right thing:whistle: . Leaders are supposed to be in power to guide and protect the people who allow them to be there.. be they voting citizens or serfs even slaves. When the Lord forgets his role society crumbles from both top and bottom. The middle classes wonder why they are being eaten from both sides..;)
But I hope we can be more than a barrel of mixtures with scum on the top and solid stuff confined to the bottom:) . The net brings a better lot and all is as it should be in the world:D . We are seeing the evolution of humans.. for better or for worse only time will remember us finally.
alex

[Tiroch]

The Inconvenient Truth is that we are the inconvenient in the natural activity of dear Mother Earth or Gaia as some express it.

We are the inconvenient because we inject into the weather equations Dear Mother Earth operates on as we are an unknown.

Dear Mother Earth cannot figure the means to handle our interjection.

So Dear Mother Earth seems to be confused. Or is it?

Is it confused or are we confused?

Well Dear Mother Earth has done its thing for eons without confusion.

Thus we are the ones confused.

Global Warming (HCC) is a very natural thing Dear Mother Earth goes through whenever it does it. Precession, solar radiance changes and etc. cause warming.

The natural condition of Earth is to be warm at 22 deg. C.

Refer here: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[glenc]

CO2 levels are rising rapidly. Here is a graph for the last 450,000 years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

[Ric]

Did anyone hear our illustrious leader in parliament yesterday stating that Nuclear power is the cleanest and greenest option :screwy: , I nearly choked on my dinner. What happened to solar? :shrug:

Cheers

[Karls48]

The link that Glenc has posted is very interesting. Especially the last graph showing CO2 levels in the atmosphere over last 450 00 years. The graph shows cyclic rise and fall of CO2 levels in approximately 100 000 years interval. According to this graph we are due to dramatic fall in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere quite soon. I do not think that the have a Kyoto protocol 350 000 years ago.

[glenc]

On the other hand we might have a runaway CO2 increase and finish up with a planet like Venus.

[Tiroch]

To glenc,

It is known that gas measurements in compressed ice is not the same as gas measurements in free air.

So it is a case of apples and oranges to compare carbon dioxide in ancient ice to carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere.

[glenc]

Please provide evidence from a respected scientific journal.

[astroron]

Mother earth did not have in the past, six to seven billion humans pumping out billions of tons of garbage and CO2 twenty four hours a day three hundred and sixty five day a year into the atmosphere

[casstony]

Since humans are natural does it follow that everything we do is natural? Perhaps intelligent, competitive life forms naturally destroy themselves, hence the lack of ET's. Maybe we're doing what we're programmed to do so let's just enjoy ourselves and die rich.

If there are any coal industry representatives interested in employing a new, cutting edge PR guy, give me a bell.

[mick pinner]

Sonia, this may seem almost unthinkable to you but recycling is a con, do some serious and honest research on the matter and you will see the cost of recycling in terms of resources and dollars does not make it a viable alternative to land fill.
Look at the resources used by recycling facilities to fulfill their purpose, get some info on how much land is used for landfill and you will be surprised at what you find.
l understand that people want to do the right thing but what sounds like a good idea is often taken for granted without a lot of detailed examination.

[Tiroch]

To glenc, (Post 52)

I present the following:

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm


A line of evidence has been added since 1980. Ice buried below the surface of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps contains bubbles of air trapped when the ice originally formed. These samples of fossil air, some of them over 200,000 years old, have been retrieved by drilling deep into the ice. Measurements from the youngest and most shallow segments of the ice cores, which contain air from only a few decades ago, produce carbon dioxide concentrations nearly identical to those that were measured directly in the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. But the older parts of the cores show that carbon dioxide amounts were about 25% lower than today for the ten thousand years previous to the onset of industrialization, and over that period changed little.

Of course highly compressed ice would have a far different air bubble than fresh ice. Thus the use of fresh ice as the same as ancient ice is wrong.

[glenc]

RE:Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 2004. The Bush government was doing its best to deny climate change at that time.

People used to believe that the earth was flat. People used to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe. People used to deny climate change was happening. If your lifestyle/job produces lots of CO2 you will have trouble accepting that man is contributing to global warming.

[Tiroch]

So glenc you believe a scientist from a Poland place was kow towing to Bush? You believe this scientist was there at that meeting to prostitute his research? The prostitutes are the ones pushing us as the blame.

So do your own searches on that matter.

I've been on the climate file since '85.

Ridiculous!

My lifestyle contributes whatever it does. I don't fly in planes. I work at home so I don't commute.

Right the world is not flat. Right the Earth is not at the centre of the Universe. (please note when writing about our universe it is capital U).

It is not the deny of climate change that is the issue. It is the cause.

It is not that humankind is not contributing to this situation.

It is that it is minuscule (3 - 4% max.).

It is that such contribution is accelerating a Mother Earth Natural Warm cycle.

If you actually believe the we mere humans are bigger than Mother Earth, well I say you are a lost soul.

My goodness to you we are more powerful than our life giving source - the Sun which is the Mother of All weather generators.

John

[Ric]

I might have missed a bit somewhere but if Humans are only contibuting 3-4% of the CO2 that affecting our planet where is the other 96-97% coming from.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

And glenc take a go at this. I posted here on another thread which was dumped by Moderator:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

You will note the World is leaving a cool cycle and that the World is normally warm at 22C.

We live in an aberration temperature wise (normally warm and we are cool) and since we have a history of less that an eye blink in the grand scheme of the History of Earth we do not know that which is the issue. BTW The thermometer was only invented in the earlier 1800's and became in use to record temps. only in the later 1800's. All prior is anecdotal or from Earth Science research and Geological research.

And further the network of Earth based temperature stations have remained static and as urban growth encroached the stations have been caught in the Urban Heat Sink. If you care to study you will find space sats. find the temp. has not changed much over many tears.

[Tiroch]

Ric,

Mother Nature is the source.

And I refer you as I have done to many to a National Geographic issue on Global Warming dated Sept. 2004 and many other sources - as in oceans and etc.

The carbon cycle is complex and involves oceans, forests, land, people animals and so on. Not simple at all.

[Tiroch]

Ric,

If we did not have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we would all freeze to death. We need a greenhouse. It is a life giving gas that is being abused by ignorant people wanting to blame the warm on us.

To tamper with Mother Nature on that could lead to us being suffocated.

Mirrors in space to reflect the Sun? Injecting dust into space to reflect the Sun heat?

My Gawd!

Better to spend the trillions of carbon credits on solving the real issues of pollution, famine, bad water and so on. At least the affected people would have a life instead of a bad life.

So what's wrong with this picture?

[Ric]

Agreed Tiroch it is a very complex process and involves many factors as you say and agreed that CO2 is required to keep the planet warm and all life alive in the fragile system.

The problem is then that humankind is upsetting this balance by polluting the oceans, removing rain forrests at a ridiculous rate and pumping excessive pollution into the atmosphere and probably a lot more thing I have forgot to mention. Even if our contribution is only 3-4% then it is obviously the straw that is breaking the camel's back as it were.

It therefore stands to reason that we need to do as much as we can now to ensure a future and let the earth return to it's natural balance.
Solar is a good start, if we had done it 30 years ago we wouldnt be in this mess to start with.

Cheers :)

[glenc]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skep tics


How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

[Ric]

Very interesting links Glen, it took a bit of reading but it was worth it.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

If it was not for the debate on climate change having been hijacked by political groups, the debate could be fairly resolved. However that is not the case. Political groups direct virtually all research money to the groups and individuals that support the lib-left position that humans are the guilty party and have worked hard to cast deniers as the bad people in this.

I've read hundreds of pages from both sides over the past 20 years and having a background in Earth Sciences re geology I've concluded the debate has no means to be resolved fairly due to massive political interference.

To equate the warming to humans having injected carbon dioxide to some mysterious tipping point is to credit humans with an ability that exceeds that of Mother Nature to do the same thing. That is impossible. None of the arguments to achieve that can be considered anything more than speculation based on computer modeling, in the main, using inputs derived from false sources such as land based temperature readings that are contaminated by urban heat sinks while at the same time ignoring satellite temperature readings that show next to zero increase (at least for the last 20 years which is the time line of the warming issue).

The money being wasted on trying to stop Mother Nature is shameful while at the same time doing hardly anything (by comparison) to correct air pollution, water contamination, deforestation, famines, slavery, wars and so on.

We are being led down a false path for purely political reasons. The reality of this issue is that it is confined to industrialized northern nations that are the power house of wealth generation, medical research and technological advances and thus most of the wealth of the world. Within this area most governments are lib-left or have conservative governments that bend to the ideas of the lib-left just enough to retain power.

The lib-left have always blamed industrial activity for the ills of the world while at the same time enjoying the benefits this has created. I have never been able to come to grips with this contradiction.

The blame humans for global warming is a direct result of this warped view.

And that has led to a subversion of the issue which has led to a false conclusion.

If a true conclusion could be made, we could then spend our resources on efforts to cope with the warming rather than waste these on an unstoppable.

[glenc]

The temperature in Greenland is rising by 0.3 C to 0.7 C per decade according to satellite data. http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg. More Arctic ice is melting in summer, the sea is reflecting less sunlight and getting warmer. How long will it be until Greenland's icecap starts melting fast? The temperature in some places is rising by 0.7C to 0.9C per decade. That could mean 9C per century in northern Canada, parts of Norway and Sweden. Over the last 400,000 years Antarctic temperatures have varied by about 12C. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[Tiroch]

To glenc,

Have a go at this:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool10.htm

Please note trend analyses are meaningless. One needs to use this:

Again, this only shows the inadequacy of using trend lines with climate data. Climate is a chaotic system, subject to unpredictable changes. For climate data, trend lines are useless. Gaussian or other similar averaging is the only thing that will allow us to understand the data. In addition, it is necessary to have long term records to have any chance of understanding what is happening.

[merlin8r]

Let's assume for a minute that global warming isn't happening, that climate change is just a tool for someone to launch a political career.....

Why risk it? Why NOT just take a few simple measures to reduce emissions? Because it's too hard? Remember when all aerosol cans contained CFC's for propelant? It's not like living a little cleaner will have a massive impact on our day to day lives. 50 feet of water over my house will though, and I'm not prepared to take that risk.

[casstony]

Tiroch, I see you have a professional qualification - you could probably earn a few dollars from the fossil fuel industry with your views on global warming. I bet coal companies pay way better than green organisations too.

With the information and disinformation circulating it's pretty hard to reach a definite conclusion, but if the majority of scientists in the field think there is a problem isn't it woth guarding against the risks?

[Ric]

Hi Tony, not all us Geologists think that way. I used to work in the mining industry and it always worried me how thing were done.
And there is no way I would ever work in Uranium exploration.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

My Dear casstony,

To elaborate I've been a professional engineer in mining since '59.

I worked at uranium mills in the early '60's as a mill engineer.

Now I am my own man (17 years). I work selling mining stuff to Russia. So I earn good dollars selling coal process equipment to Russians. Try that if you can as most never get past go.

My views have zip to do with my selling to coal producers as it relates to global warming.

I have zero interest in earning any dollars from this topic. I'm only interested in bringing clarity to the issue and to defeat the one sided aspect that prevails which is we mere humans are more powerful than Mother Nature and the Sun. That is just plain ridiculous.

My short essay earlier today was to bring clarity and reality to this issue and it was about disinformation.

As to the majority of scientists it is that enough has been written about these types doing such for the sake of dollars.
*********************

And merlin8r that is correct. Reduce emissions but these are for our own good. Clean air - yes why ever not. Clean water - yes why ever not and so on.

[casstony]

Tiroch, to imply that we don't have major impacts on our planet is simply ridiculous. A few decades ago my uncle was responsible for clearing thousands of acres of forest/scrub in WA, destroying habitat and eventually rendering the land infertile. Many others around the world are doing the same. There is a limit to how much damage we can do before mother nature damages us. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope that the dire predictions are wrong, or we can play it safe and act in a manner that we think will preserve our atmosphere.

[Argonavis]

Scientists are just as capable of getting it wrong as anyone else. Maybe more so, as making sense of a lot of climate data is not easy. Witness Mann's "hockey stick" graph.

Many scientists are being asked to subscribe to the GW idea even though it is out of their field of expertise, and some are making themselves into media tarts.

[Argonavis]

Do you really think that repacing a few incandescent light bulbs with long life ones, or using public transport, will seriously move the 380ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere down to a pre-industrial 280ppm?

All power stations would have to go. Do you realise what this would do?

And then you will have to deal with the CO2 the remaining humans (those left after starvation and lack of modern public health and medical facilities) will be exhaling.

Even leaving the current level of emissions (which will involve significantly more efficient technology to deal with increases in population and rising living standards in India and China and elsewhere) you will still be increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

How are you going to get the CO2 back down?

As Lomberg points out, the cost of Kyoto could pay for uncontaminated drinking water for the entire world.

*If* climate change is happening (and history tells us that the climate does change over time) then there not not much humans can do about it.

However, what I suspect we are seeing is the operation of natural cycles, and a lot of hysterical people.

[Argonavis]

Even more hysteria:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/channel_10_exploits_the_warming_hys terics/#commentsmore

[Ric]

I may not be that bright as to understand every chart and statistic that is presented to me, but I do remember everyone putting down the hole in the ozone as greeny rubbish and propaganda, so why did they ban CFC's if it was a lot of rubbish?
I shall continue with my permaculture and recycling regardless of what people say and eventually leave this planet happy in the fact that I did my bit to help.
In the meantime I shall plant some more tree's this weekend at the farm.

Cheers :)

[matt]

Good for you, Ric.

If it's a choice between polluting or not, I think I'll take the same option as you.

I too am unconvinced either way on the GW issue, but my attitude is until we know one way or the other, how bad can a little preventative action be?

[mick pinner]

a large percentage of people in the affluent west want their nice cars, heated houses, effective public transport, trains planes etc, and all this comes at a cost.
to believe that anything of any significance can be done to reverse the state of the climate and the planet on a whole is a pipe dream.
l don't like it any more than anyone else but the planet is run by economics not environmental considerations.
in my opinion we are past the point of no return, we have larger issues to concern us anyway, peak oil has been reached already, just wait and see what massive ramifications this has in the next 10-20 years, it will make climate change and pollution look positively insignificant.

[mickoking]

Well if caring for the future of this planet and being able to point out the infallibility of mankind's treatment of our atmosphere makes myself and many, many others hysterical so be it :thumbsup:

Sorry but I just I dont believe neo-conservative, money first pollies and a few mavrick scientists funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

[mick pinner]

it is unfortunetly a fact of life that economics are the driving force otherwise we would not be in the position we now find ourselves. we as a species have raped entire forests, polluted massive rivers and killed entire species, do you think we only woke up yesterday and thought oh no what have we done?
governments have always known what the consequences would be but money rules.

[Argonavis]

I think this is sadly pessimistic. Certainly humans have changed their landscape, but much forest remains, waterways are cleaner then they have been for years, and whilst some species have become extinct, this is what happens to life on Earth. I think many governments have devoted considerable resources to looking after our environment. It was back in the 1970's that the Hamer government in Victoria established the Environmental Protection Authority. Considerable resources and legislation have gone into environmental preservations and remediation since. Even building a house requires an environmental management plan and mitigation for sediment run off.

At the same time our species has allowed, through this process of industrial and economic development, millions to enjoy a far richer and more rewarding and fulfilled life then their parents could ever have imaged. You are one of the most privledged generations in human history, and have adequate disposable imcome to afford both to pay taxes to support environmental policies and probably that nice Meade I see in the corner.

Sure, there are problems at the margins. Due to too many people and not enough resources, habitat loss and species extinction is a problem in some areas. What is needed is greater economic development in these areas of the world to bring them up to our level of prosperity. It is only then that a society can afford wilderness preservation and pollution mitigation.

I really am convinced that human ingenuity can only lead to a better future for everyone. We need sensible government, especially in some of the more unfortunate areas of the world. These factors will allow our species to overcome even radical climate change (however unlikely) and build a much better future.

Back in the 1960's, the Manbearpig was nuclear holocost, in the 1970's it was the population bomb, in the 1980's it was greed, in the 1990's it has become GW and climate change.

I rather think some people need to get a grip and take a cold shower.

[Argonavis]

No, not really.

I don't know quite where this concept of "peak oil" comes from, but it has the same flavour as most of the doomsday scenarios so beloved of the chattering classes.

The world has never run out of anything.

In the 1860's the world was running out of whale oil - it was a crisis moment of peak whale oil - how would people illuminate their homes with no whale oil? Crunch time.

But it never came.

Neither will peak hydrocarbon oil. Human ingenuity, and the operation of the market, will ensure that we will have enough power to run our civilisation for a long time to come.

An interesting article on this is here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_oil.html

enjoy and relax

[Argonavis]

Thanks for this Tiroch. I am rather fond of this Polish Professor (even if I can't pronounce his name) who has spent his life tramping up and down glaciers and is prepared to say that he doesn't see any problems.

The pictures shown by Sonia in one of her posts have the hallmarks to me of Greenpeace style propoganda. As any good filmmaker knows, it is very easy to fool people with images.

I read recently that there is a satellite due to be launched that will accurately measure the ice mass in the antartica. I would prefer to wait for this data, thank you.

[Tiroch]

To All Here,

To clarify I do not recall I ever said that we were not polluting our Home Planet. In fact I said the money being wasted on an insolvable would go a very long way to reducing pollution, cleaning contaminated drinking water, eliminating famines, cutting out slavery and wars.

That being said, the issue of Global Warming (GW) has been defined by the greenies as a matter of pollution by classifying the life giving gas, carbon dioxide, a pollutant.

We can not equate atmospheric pollution to the broader GW matter. On the one hand soot blocks sunlight. On the other hand aerosols cool the atmosphere. And on the third hand carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. CFC's and ozone are an entirely different issue related to UV penetration.

The Earth's natural condition is warm as per here (again):

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm Scroll down to graph.

We are exiting an historical cool period.

Alex here has defined this as Historic Climate Change - HCC.

[glenc]

"So I earn good dollars selling coal process equipment to Russians.
My views have zip to do with my selling to coal producers as it relates to global warming." Tiroch
I find that hard to believe.
This is not a normal warming cycle. We haven't had CO2 levels this high before.

[Tiroch]

Argonavis (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=165)

About ice data here is the reality in Alaska:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool10.htm

[Tiroch]

glenc : Find hard to believe says I'm lying.

I suppose to you if I was an academic paid by taxpayers coming out against the hysteria of the falseness of the GW issue I would be thrown in the trash bin titled "Deniers" by you.

So in your view no matter what I write, I'm lying.

I won't go further as if I do I risk a Moderator dumping the thread.

[glenc]

I don't think you are lying. If I had shares or a job in the coal mining industry I would look for evidence that GW is not happening or not man made too.

[Tiroch]

Historical carbon dioxide concentrations:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

We currently have an Earth History low.

We continue to suffer from an Importance Complex even though we have only been recording our history for a few thousand years out of the billions of Earth age and we confound it by not realizing recorded temperatures only started after the invention of the thermometer about 150 years ago.

And we further contaminate the GW issue by using false land based temperature measurements (UHI effect) while ignoring satellite measurements showing no discernible warming over the past 20 years (wrote this earlier and repeat for emphasis).

So who is lying? The Earth history?

And to repeat it is not that the Earth is not warming. It is that it is not us as the cause. It is the Solar cycle that is the cause and that directly influences carbon dioxide levels.

Here is a link to the topic of Solar activity and Earth climate:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

As noted there it is still a matter of more research.

And this looks at both sides of the issue of cause:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

Check out the link through titled: increased levels of greenhouse gases near page bottom.

[glenc]

"And we further contaminate the GW issue by using false land based temperature measurements (UHI effect) while ignoring satellite measurements showing no discernible warming over the past 20 years (wrote this earlier and repeat for emphasis)."
This satellite image shows warming, mainly in the north. http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg

[Tiroch]

Yes glenc I am aware of the satellites reading northern warming and of course that cannot be disputed but the issue of warming always uses world average temp. Like as in - the world has warmed by ...... The ignoring of UHI remains a valid point as to input data not reflecting reality.

The northern tendency to show more warming than elsewhere has to do with the axis tilt and precession.

This link gets into some of that:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html

And this link has quite a bit of Earth climate history:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[glenc]

http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm is an analysis of http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html (http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree."
http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

[merlin8r]

Frankly, YES. To suggest any less is to say "my vote doesn't count". How do we get CO2 levels back down? Easy! Once we stop pumping more than the trees can process into oxygen, the CO2 levels will drop. It really is that simple. It's happened before.
Either way, the Earth will look after itself. Once the carbon gets too high, an ice age is triggered. And they happen quickly. Like ten years quick. You might be prepared to sit on your hands and do nothing because it is too hard, but I am not.

[Tiroch]

Well glenc I stand by Earth History and am not going to flip this and that link anymore as these you post seem to be ignoring Earth history.

Your first link completely ignores that our carbon dioxide concentration is currently far below historical Earth levels and the author has distorted the meaning of such concentrations.

I chose not to get into he/she said and he/she said. The climate history of Earth is well documented (some of my posts) and I'll hang on that. That is an irrefutable fact.

The second link you posted is one I just posted today which I take you posted for the contrary in your first posted link.

In other words this is going nowhere as long as replies are based on ignoring Earth climate history.

It is like trying to argue Napoleon did not attack Moscow.

[Tiroch]

To melin8r,

Yes Ice Ages happen very, very fast.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

http://www.usask.ca/geology/classes/geol206/glacial.html

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

[merlin8r]

Well Tiroch, your work for a mining company, my wife is a geographer. 2 sides of the coin there. But what would she know, right? I said they happen fast, as in from regular to ice age in ten years or so, not that they only last 10 years.

[Tiroch]

No merlin8r I do not work for a mining company. I work since 1990 in the wonderful land of working for myself. I sell my knowledge in that which I know in the area of mineral processing equipment. This knowledge is from starting in this in '59.

That means I need to have Persistence, Patience and Profit. Otherwise I'm not surviving.

[xelasnave]

Well this is what “they” want. Confusion and take your eye off the ball is the game.The promoters of global warming want to cloud the issues. It still boils down to one thing and one thing only it is a machinery to sell desalinators and nuclear power plants (lots of other gear actually as well).. Will we get them.. yes! right after Mr Gore’s final presentation of the problem that nuclear power can solve. Don’t worry about a thing all will be ok just consume as if nothing has happened..It matters not who caused it ..it is here..dont waste money on crap that won’t fix it..just look what they are doing..red herrings everywhere so a bad decision will seem like a good one..look at the events of the next 28 days with my warning in mind… see the reality of the concern. Alex

[casstony]

I was wondering where you had gone Alex; this discussion just didn't seem whole without your input :)

[xelasnave]

Well I hope to put my money where my mouth is..In Sydney I am going to go solar and disconnect from the grid.. not to save the planet but to save bucks.. I figure if I can live in the bush with two panels maybe I can do similar in town.. even working on a water generator for the pool drains from ig pools uphill.. so far it looks as though I will save money and saving money is what "they" try to do eh?
I just think that feeling guilt for something we may well be responsible for it ok but to think we can change behaviour never..so lets not get hooked on another short term solution.. non renewable fuel is going nowhere..its that simple so lets research how to get the most out of renewables..not easy but nor is preventing a histoic climate change.
alex

[Argonavis]

But but the trees crate methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm





Not sure I follow - what is it that causes ice ages? You must know something no-one else does.

[Tiroch]

Argonavis


Please look at my post No. 96. Best I know the main cause of an Ice Age is the change in Earth axis tilt.

[Tiroch]

As well, and to use Alex's phrase Historic Climate Change (HCC), there was an HCC that started about 40 million years ago and that was the first Ice Age.

Earth scientists have studied this and have concluded these started as a result of the collision of the tectonic plate on which India floats with the plate on which southern Asia floats resulting in the creation of the Himalaya mountains. This upthrust of land very high into the atmosphere altered air circulation patterns.

BTW this pertains to my last previous post about tilt. Not sure if I posted this earlier so 'repeat' it:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html

[Ric]

Hi Tiroch, some scientists believe that the Himalayas are a major factor in the current ice age of which we have been in recession from for around 10,000 years, but it is still an unproven hypothesis as the geologic record dating back to Tethyan sediments do not match with known ice age periods.
The Himalayas' formation started about 70 million years ago with the Indo Australian plate colliding with the Eurasion plate. In fact we are still moving north but the Eurasion plate is now stretching causing the Himalayan chain to in fact decrease in height.
There is more evidence to suggest that the movement of the plates themselves are altering the flow of warmer water to the north and south areas which in turn would cause larger ice sheets and reflect the warmth away from the Earth.
With the increase of CO2 levels the opposite is fact happening regardless of tectonic movement.

[Tiroch]

Hi Ric,

Thanks for the reply. My reference to 40 million years ago is related to when the mountain building had completed (never completed of course as yes these are still uplifting but very slowly).

As to any relation to current GW this is not a factor. It is considered the cause of Ice Ages as there were none before this Earth movement action.

[xelasnave]

Let us assume (unwisely) that historic climate change is being moved faster because of human activity:) ... say all the problems will go away if humans can remove their foot print from the problem. I ask being realistic does anyone think that humans can get together on a world wide political forum and do anything meaningful such that humans can reduce their contribution:shrug: . Whilst people love to fly, love to eat, love to drive, love to consume, love to waste recourses and love to leave it to the other guy ...I ask simply “can there be any change in behavior?”... oh we will get wonderful people coming to seminars to have their “world saving say" only to drive to the air port in their big petrol car to fly off to another seminar in their big fuel wasting air polluting jet. Vested interests see the opening and produce their cures but really what will change?...nothing as far as human behavior...but the climate will still change:scared: ..it has happened in the past (hence historic climate change) without humans there to stop it:eyepop: ... does anyone seriously think humans will pull back current outputs to a pre industrial revolution output. If you believe that then of course you will believe the various sales presentations that "out product will save the world". I like the way people say well "if there is a chance that humans cause it we better do something" as if we can lay a side bet on the outcome. What a cop out! I am not sure so I will go with the others…. Wimpish.. take an informed stand:) . I say we can’t do anything to prevent it who says we can?? Who seriously says we can do anything to change human behavior? Take your stand now or get out of the way:) . Any cash or energy wasted in an effort to stop it uses more energy and adds to the problem they try to solve. However all dark clouds have a silver lining:) . Electric cars are getting welcome public attention:) . Some folk are starting to realize that by saving energy, around the house and in their personal worlds translate into real savings in the dollars they spend on energy:) :) .. mmm sellers did not allow for this annoying development:D .
What I don’t like is to see kids fearful of a future they feel their parents have ruined for them:mad2: .. That is nasty and cruel. Study marketing and you will realize such is no accident:mad2: . Nasty to have parents feel that by accepting nuclear they make a better future for their kids when of course they only pay profit to those responsible for the fear campaign… Without global warming to drive the mob who will accept nuclear power? I heard the numbers show 80% of the population is in not in favor:shrug: … oh is that all? Guess we need some more sky is falling so they won’t even whimper:D .. I don’t like to see the West happy to over indulge until it is now the less developed nations that line up at the table for their share only to be told..You can’t have it you will cause too much pollution. How hypocritical, how human, how sad.
The only relevance to the question “have humans caused the problem” is to introduce the notion humans can fix it… fix it with nuclear power it seems.. well seriously..if the problem is so bad does anyone think nuclear will solve it? You will find yourself believing that we can:) .. because over the past six months you have been pumped with mind bending matter so that’s exactly what you will think:) … I feel so sad that few people realize that they have been manipulated, and worse the way their children have been manipulated and are not outraged that their kids have been tampered with:mad2: .
I object to seeing a cartoon series making nuclear energy seem ok by having an idiot placed as safety control officer (subtle, cruel and nasty) …mmm nuclear must be so safe that they only need an idiot like Homer to look after it ..nuclear must be so safe there is nothing to worry about if he can manage it… let’s face it there have been episodes where Homer alone saves an “accident”.. pity the cartoon does not go on to show the horrors of an “accident”:scared: .. The reference to three eyed fish gets too little airing perhaps:whistle: .
Look at the row in politics now.. who talked to whom? You can’t talk to an ex con :) ! What does serving time not fix it:) ? The righteous approach is sickening given the deals that are now being done under the falling sky. Well let’s get the public attention on raw politics so we can get down to doing some business with the desalinator people and the nuclear power plant people. Focus people! focus on how you are being conned. Remember the Y2 k bug and all the others that cost you worry and dollars. Don’t waste time arguing causes argue about the solutions…long term:thumbsup: .. Intellectually challenging and worthwhile for the future of the country..Our kids:thumbsup: :) .
alex

[Karls48]

Very good Alex, congratulation on your last post. As former salesmen you can see the sales pitch in this hysteria about global GW.
I must say I have not seen such a clever propaganda and brain washing fed to population of industrialised countries since I left my former communist dictatorship country many years ago. Pictures of the Opera House slowly sinking to the Harbour, as seen on TV are examples on it. Last night programme on Ch 10 another. GW is becoming a religion.
Alex asks right question - who is going to benefit form this. But he sees the answers only on corporate and industry level. Ask yourself question- which countries are going to benefit if the West is going to weaken itself economically by fighting GW?
As for energy savings. Guess what is going to happen if every household in Australia is going to cut energy consummation by 20%? Energy prices will go up by 30%.

[casstony]

To act according to your conscience is to have integrity.

To be unsure of your opinion is to have wisdom.

[Tiroch]

With age comes wisdom and to be unsure is to be aware that you may not be correct and that is also wisdom.

And to Karls48 I say China stands and waits to take us western types out once we have bankrupted our societies fighting an impossible 'war'. We can throw India into that as well but China is it.

And yeah also Russia.

None of whom have signed the idiocy of Kyoto.

[Argonavis]

Actually, that program, like all commercial TV, is about making money. It was sponsored by the advertisers to make more money.


What next? Buy your carbon offsets here....



http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-03-02-offsets-usat_x.htm

[Argonavis]

No doubt you are referring to the Milankovitch cycles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

I am not sure that these have any scientific consensus as yet. I suspect that our scientific industrial culture will need to be around for a few hundred thousand years to properly observe and collect data to validate them.

[Tiroch]

A bit here on carbon offsets and trees:

Here's some examples.
"Green" celebrities often claim to reduce their carbon imprint to zero when flying around the world by buying "carbon offsets". One popular way of doing this is by planting trees.
Let's do the math. It takes 15 trees 40 to 50 years to absorb five tons of carbon.

A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger. Carbon dioxide takes 50 to 200 years to dissipate naturally.

Therefore, to absorb most of the carbon dioxide caused by one passenger taking one domestic round-trip flight across Canada in 2007, requires planting 15 trees today that won't complete the job until 2047-2057, assuming none is destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they'll release their carbon back into the atmosphere.
As Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza write in Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, from which I took these figures: "(I)f we imagine that tree planting can be the solution to the world's climate problems, we may be making a massive miscalculation."
Flying is also just about the worst way to emit greenhouse gases. Taking one long flight can easily exceed a year's worth of car emissions. Plus, it injects the gas into the atmosphere at high altitude, heightening the greenhouse effect. The only way to be "carbon neutral" when flying is to get off the plane before it takes off.
Then there's Kyoto's "clean development mechanism" allowing developed countries to obtain "carbon credits" to emit more greenhouse gases by bankrolling projects to reduce them in developing nations. But we can't even be sure our foreign aid is reaching the people who most need it now. How can we possibly know these projects will ever happen, or do what we're told they'll do, particularly in corrupt dictatorships? Remember the widespread fraud in the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq? Wait until Kyoto, a UN treaty, is fully operational.
*********************************
When it comes to 'greenies' I get upset because of the genocide they allowed to happen after Rachel Carson's 1961 book Silent Spring.

The genocide is they convincing the head person at the USA EPA to make a ban on DDT conditional on aid to African countries. That was in 1969 at the same time malaria was almost eradicated. Since then millions have died. So where are the 'greenies'? Hanging their collective heads in shame? No way.

They are out and about getting ready to destroy our atmosphere by silly schemes like injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to deflect life giving heat from the Sun or having mirrors erected in space to shut out the Sun.

They sit back content knowing their early work caused the 'murder' of millions (the DDT matter). I suppose to them the death of billions by screwing with our atmosphere is OK as long as they got their way.

Explain please the reason any sane person keeps allowing this to go on.

[Karls48]

Yes Tiroch those are countries that would greatly benefit by disintegration of Western democracies. The WEST did not defeat USSR Empire by military might. It was by setting up impossible (for communist economy) economic goals that bankrupted communist countries and the Empire fell apart. No one is immune to such a tactics, especially democracies so fragmented as ours.

[Tiroch]

Argonavis (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=165)

Exactly my reference.

And yes a few hundred thousand years of observing weather patterns may actually bring clarity to the raging issue of GW which has only 150 years of temperature measurements (invention of the thermometer).

So out of a few billion years of changing climate we are experts with at the most a 150 year time line of measuring. Ridiculous! And deep down any thinking person would know that.

Something else is afoot and it is not true climate science.

[Tiroch]

Right Karls48 and the Chinese are currently not fragmented. That of course can blow up at anytime but we can't bet on that.

BTW I thought it was Reagan's outspend the USSR on weapons that caused the economic collapse.

[LX200]

Jeeze I hope it happens again in my lifetime :whistle:
I notice the magnetic shift is creeping steadily along.
like an elastic band stretching until the point where it snaps back
correcting itself.
Now multiple poles and multiple aurorae would be something to see. :thumbsup:
The bonus would be NO MORE planes flying around creating GW :rofl:

[Tiroch]

To LX200,

Well the Earth axis tilt has a cycle too long for our lifetimes (that is a predictable) but on the other hand a flip in the magnetic poles is imminent (that is an unpredictable) which means soon, maybe a lifetime or maybe more.

The latter is based on geological rock analysis as to magnetic alignment of certain rock minerals which shows periodic flipping but not on a predictable schedule such as axis tilt.

Signs of a flip is whale beaching which is now blamed on disorientation due to a change in the magnetic grid flux pattern. Other signs come from certain birds migrating to places they never did in the past.

[Karls48]

BTW I thought it was Reagan's outspend the USSR on weapons that caused the economic collapse.

That was the final nail in the coffin, rot started much earlier.

[Karls48]

By the way, do you realise that North Pole is actually South Pole. We just call it North because north point of magnetic needle points to it.

[Tiroch]

Yes rot started very much longer ago and then the false facade of might collapsed for the reason I mentioned.

Ah Karl48 I wrote a piece on another astronomy forum about that which you just wrote.

I can't agree North Pole is actually South Pole but I can say this the North Pole is due to earlier Europeans in the North of our World having invented the magnetic compass and found the needle point 'up'.

In their life up was 'north'.

And of course that led to East being right on maps and West being left with South being down below.

I suppose if it was invented in say Australia and the needle pointed south (South Magnetic Pole) then North would be opposite today's definition.

In any event when the poles flip North will be South.

[mickoking]

This will be my last post on this subject coz I am just repeating my self now. The handfull of GW skeptics left can argue their point point till the cows come home but The facts are GW is happening now and man is the major contributer.

Earth is our only home and will be for a very long time so lets start looking after it. It is our lifestyle and over consumption that is pushing our Earths fragile ecosystem to its limits, it will come back and bite us on our bottoms unless we get our heads out of the sand and do something about it.

Australia is the worlds largest per capita emmiter of CO2 closely followed by the US but our spineless pollies can't even sign up to the very reasonable targets set by Kyoto, truly pathetic. There is no need to point the finger at China either their per capita emmisions are 6 times smaller than ours and despite the lack of political leadership from Australia and the US at least they admit global warming is a real problem and are doing something about it despite an enormous population of over 1300 million.

My hat goes of to the likes of Tim Flannery, Al Gore, David Attenborough and others that have bought GW to the mainstream despite the obstacles placed the way by vested interests.

I am very passionate about this subject so my apologies if I put anyones nose out of joint :D Ooorooo

[xelasnave]

Yes Karl we should ask who stands to profit?:shrug: . I have no idea where nuclear energy brain power resides or who is at the cutting edge of desalination research but I bet who ever they are, they pay money to the global warming crew:) .. It should not take much to lay these accusations at someone’s door I would imagine..Maybe there will be answers found by digging to find the answer to that question..who will get the cash????..who?? Australian business interests?..doubt it. They may unload the boat, ship the goods and even erect the things but is it Australian industry that benefits? .. why do I already doubt any Aussie will get more than ZIP.
Well Micko you don’t put my nose outta joint and it’s already been broken in two places:lol: :lol: :lol: . I don’t know that I agree that we are causing “historic Climate Change” I do agree we polute wastefully and un necessarily but that is not the point.. however if we are hastening the Historic Climate Change there is no need to become frantic and convinced we can stop it..irrespective of who says we can. The protocol, will fail, even if targets are reached, and they will not be reached, and also it leaves many of the big contributors out of the picture, just the USA China India but that wont prevent those involved selling nuclear power and desalinators. Look into what will be achieved even if the protocol is reached.. mere fraction of the problem is being addressed and it is being addressed in a stupid stupid fashion that only pays lip service to recognising the problem ..but it does nothing absolutely nothing other than run up lawyers and consultants fees (plus air fares to have meetings etc etc) (think it thru get the facts and you will dispair that it is a sham.. simply a sham) As to the likes of Mr Gore being a public minded citizen I doubt it.. big money people don’t often do anything unless there is a gain in their interest available in the result. Power I would put forward as his motivator:) ..I doubt if his eyes are anywhere but on the white house:) ..I can see him being thrust reluctantly into power in the same way we could see Elvis Presley elected or even “the Terminator” be realistic votes are gained not by lodgic but by who likes you baby..Miko not everyone is as nice as you, as honest as you or as caring and responsible as you. On the bright side Mr Gore will do some good but will it be washed away by the evil he lets flourish as a result of his aiding a scare campainge. Many in power are money hungry gutzes maybe he is not one but the general proposition is sad but true. Ask “what does he want out of it?”.. to be able to sleep better at night?..well take a bus Mr Gore..take the train Mr Gore.. Change your house to full solar and a battery bank poor folk can only imagine..and don’t tell me the formula says its not energy efficient or I will throw up.. Mr Gore put your money where your mouth is.. easy really but does he? I say Historic Climate Change is unstoppable because history says we are going to have it..maybe we are speeding it up , that means we will have deal with the consequences not its prevention..certainly going nuclear won’t stop it..so let’s see the future… the nuclear power stations are up and running..how many does the world need?? Do the sums… How long will the fuel then last?..maybe long enough to do something constructive, but when the fuel is gone and the profits from the sale of yellow cake will be invested elsewhere…where will we be then??..plenty of waste to dispose of and still looking for a solution…lets look for the real solution now not later. Has anyone crying foul sat down and done any sums to see how cheap it is to go solar on their own house? We have electric cars that reduce car omissions by 50% but I have yet to see one..maybe they are on their way but it makes me wonder why GMH and Ford are busy building race cars and not electric cars:eyepop: .. its about money folks pure and simple, any folk we get to hear banging the drum have a vested financial interest to promote the fear...many simply as paid presenters whose personal view is irrelevant as they only read their script, the same as if they were selling toothpaste or soap:) . Look at the adds.. the crap we get day in day out ..they cost money..they are not funded by some do gooder wanting to save humanity:) . The lobby power behind this thing is huge (obviously they must control our uranium by now but I am afraid to look to see who now has it.).Yellow cake is not something you need to keep in the control of our nation..is it? ..so please try to see who is peddling what and what they seek to gain. That is the way of the world it is not a new concept thought up by me..Ask who will get the cash??? Why have our pollies rolled over? Who is doing the lobby work? Investors or do good concerned folk?. Why this week do we get this greater than thou crap from our PM..usually when that stuff is being pulled out for the press there are bigger fish being fried out the back;) ..I know its all my imagination:screwy: :) :whistle: ..well tell me in six months what part I got wrong;) .
alex:) :) :)

[xelasnave]

The North South thing suggests to me that indeed the North Pole is indeed a "South" pole in magnatism speak. Just look which pole of a magnet points North if it is the North pole of a magnet that points North then the North pole is in fact a "South" pole. See nothing is ever the way it seems or as we may have had it well intrenched in our belief system.
alex

[xelasnave]

And thats it from me on this for a couple of days at least:D , I am addressing real issues in my real life;) . Some of which are related directly to becoming more energy efficient :) ..putting my money where my mouth is one could say:lol: :lol: :lol: . So if you recon I am off track you can have a three day go at making me look "not real":) without fear that I will cloud the issue with facts:whistle: . Which I have not brought to bear at this point but I say they are even stronger than my views;) .
alex:) :) :)

[Tiroch]

I know this has nothing to do with GW but I'm here in a small town in Southern Ontario absolutely isolated from the outside.

We have:

Snow Squall Warnings: 10 - 20 cms
Wind Chill Warnings: to minus 35C
White Out Warnings: all roads closed
Wind Warning: to 90 km
Roads: all closed

Now as you mostly enjoy the Summer of the South in Australia I trust you could possibly appreciate that which we in the Queen of Snows goes through in Winter.

Actually after 14 years in this location this is by far the worst.

Today is my birthday and I'm just taking it easy. My wife could not even take my out for dinner as nothing is open.

[Tiroch]

Nothing is over until it is over. The GW issue is not even close to being over.
The GW issue has been set up as a media event.(Maurice Strong and Rio '90)

Media types are not scientific but they are good at Chicken Little stuff as that sells the papers.

In the '80's the Chicken Little was a coming Ice Age and then boom Strong showed up.

Media moved to the new Chicken Little and so did these non producers called 'environmentalists'. You know - follow the money!

It is not exactly the Flavour of the Month but it sure is close.

We all want cleaner air. We all want clean water. We all know that is possible with enough spent to do that.

Unfortunately the money is being spent on a false activity which we mere humans have zero chance of influencing.

Think about that.

[xstream]

"Man can shape his world if he does not resign himself to ignorance" -Pearl Buck 1938 Nobel Prize for Literature.

[Omaroo]

Alex - I enjoy reading your reply posts, but could I humbly ask that you put in some paragraph breaks every so often? It's so hard to read...... :(

Cheers - and keep contributing :thumbsup:
Chris

[Tiroch]

My Dear xstream,

That is a bit of deep philosophical writing.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge or education.

Resign is to accept an inevitable.

So if I and others have lack of knowledge or education and except the inevitable are we ignorant?

Frankly that quote is very obscure.

The ignorance is the 98% that don't pay attention.

[Ric]

It's not that obscure to me, It makes perfect sense.
We have the power and ability to do everything or nothing, it's our choice.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

Right ric we do have the power but we lack the will to solve the real issues that bear on this World - the ones on which we can truly have an effect.

If you still believe that we mere humans are bigger than Mother Nature on the GW file I know not how that can be.

On the other hand we are bigger than all the ills in our World but we do not take these on. We are being diverted to GW. Ask yourself why?

Explain the reason for that.

[Ric]

Simple, theres no profit, power or gain in it.
We are not bigger than nature but we can assist it, why don't we, because the voice of global corporations are in the ears of governments all over the world and they dont make a profit from it.
I agree we are bigger than the ills of the world, but if a company in Nation "A" develops a cure for AIDs would they give it free and without reserve to Nation "B" whose population is dying I doubt it greatly.

Cheers

[Tiroch]

Ric,

Capitalism is not about a free lunch even if such would be altruistic.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and I'm sure you know that.

Maybe that is not fair as we see it. But that is the way it is otherwise I suppose we would all have nothing to do but sit around and hope a mysterious someone would show up to feed us, to clothe us to provide heat/cool for us.

Seems to me that is close to science fiction. Ever see the movie The Time Machine - 1969 and not the crappy repeat?

So we live in a world where we have to do things to survive.

Of course we don't live in a perfect world where one would expect to make an AIDS vaccine/drug to be made free by a company.

It can only be made 'free' by a government buying it with our tax dollars.

Anyway you picked on a bad on there as AIDS is 100% avoidable.

Now if you had picked on Malaria I sure could see your point.

In any event none of this has to do with GW.

[Ric]

AIDS was the first one I thought of as an example, it can apply to any disease, Malaria, Cholera, small pox, Berry Berry, Ebola etc etc.
I'm sure that children born with AIDS wouldn't agree with you that it is 100% avoidable.
If governments stopped spending trillions on warfare for a start maybe it could be free

Cheers

[Tiroch]

Hi Ric,


Well by 100% avoidable I always understood if a condom is used then AIDS is not transmitted. Am I incorrectly informed?

As to the children to me that is not a fair statement.

John

PS I know we have wandered off topic

As to spending trillions on warfare no argument here. That is so sad.

I read an article recently that the USA affair in Iraq has direct/indirect costs heading to 1.3 trillion dollars as of now. Some wag made a list of what that money could do in the USA to improve life there: universal health care was at the top using 40% of the Iraq war cost and so on.

[xelasnave]

Thanks for the encouragement Chris and I will take on your advice re paras. Good suggestion:thumbsup: .
Alex

[DobDobDob]

Welcome back Alex :D

[xelasnave]

Looks like I may have beeen wrong as to what fish were being fried this week unless they are holding something back:shrug: ..mustta been all that mud throwing so as we did not notice the Qantas thing:lol: :lol: :lol: ... the rain mustta been a worry for the desalinator sales folk;) .
Thanks for the welcome back Ron I was only up home doing real stuff with a garden shed:D ..as they say:) . Dam wet up there we are in a permanent cloud we are slightly above it most of the time and it feels like we are on an island in the sky:) . Solar power was harvested never the less and power tools could still be used;) :)
alex:) :) :)

[Tiroch]

This is from a friend in the UK tonight. I don't get that channel here:

I am currently watching a program on the great global warming swindle on our channel 4
- very interesting facts coming out- scientists that have insisted their names be taken off the IPCC report as it has been warped so far from the truth, the facts that carbon dioxide levels lag the temperature changes by 800 years, how the sun activity directly affects cloud levels which in turn affect the temperature. how events are buffered by maybe thousands of years by the huge bulk of the oceans (whose temperature changes in turn trigger carbon dioxide levels. How volcano's give out more carbon dioxide per year than humans, by a factor of hundreds. etc etc
a very interesting documentary looking into the hype that is global warming they also are saying that the money is in globat warming, how it is the tail wagging the dog.

[xelasnave]

Well we have to do something about those volcanoes:lol: :lol: :lol:

….mmm 100 times more out put of carbon dioxide than humans now that is something to wring our hands over and all the more reason why we need nuclear power :) ..to help offset the damage that the volcanoes are causing;) … mmm I should be a salesman for the GW mob I can sell it ..money is needed to cap them all:whistle: .
The problem is the stupidity of folk who believe the global warming crap the way it is emotively served up:)
..the barrier reef will die unless we go nuclear didn’t you know, the fact that it has been around for 2 million years and lived thru many “historic climate changes” need not be considered as it does not help to sell nuclear technology…geez is everyone as gullible as their marketers would have us believe from the adds they direct at idiots.. we shall see:) , we shall see:) …

Sure do something about pollution, we are guilty, but it seems the rich are the guilty here..F1 racing, private jets, private monster boats, more of everything than they can use and a throw away attitude when something is out of fashion:) …mmm clothes take energy to produce don’t they:shrug: ? but will they do anything about it … no I doubt it and what is worse to continue consumption at an unrealistic level so we must pay for produced water and a fuel that will rise in price because of the monopoly “they” seek to gain:) .
So we will leave a fouled world for another generation to clean up. Who cares:shrug: ..not them:) .. And the next generation we expect them to look after nuclear waste I guess.. but that’s OK just so we can have everything now,.. who cares:shrug: .
But what tactics do these global warmers use..scare the kids, mislead honest people.. and if that does not work name calling with no answer using relevant facts:) .. who gave the PM the words “not real” I wonder;) ..
I hope his lesson this week has been learnt:) ..If you want to throw mud just remember you will get it on you as well as the guy you throw it at:thumbsup: ..
The next lesson is if you on the Global warming hand wringing trip, and want to use facts be prepared for someone to look closely at them and point out your corruption of same and thereafter maybe be prepared to wear the title of dishonest:)
If you seek to pervert the facts to suit the case for your vested interest pressure groups...nuclear power people and desalinator salespeople....you will be exposed. And as we cant stop the "historic climate change" or cap the volcanoes, we dont need nuclear power or manufactured water.:lol: :lol: :lol:
try the people next door they are not very bright and may go for it;) Now how "not real" is that?
alex :) :) :)

[glenc]

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data...
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

[glenc]

REFERENCES to the potential for climate change to happen faster than had been expected were watered down or removed from an international report on climate change after governments got involved, New Scientist reports. Most of the references to positive feedback (when a change in the climate leads to additional and enhanced changes) were cut from the final version of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released last month in Paris, the magazine says. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/climate-findings-suppressed-researchers/2007/03/09/1173166991649.html

[Tiroch]

More grist for the mill:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[Tiroch]

glenc,

I do agree that volcanoes did not and cannot to what is said in the CH 4 Show.

It may be it could be done but only on a very short term.

[glenc]

[I]t’s the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years, and it carries as much scientific weight as the contention that the Twin Towers were brought down by missiles.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2026124,00.html

[Calin]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I'd like to know why human interaction with the environment if it is exploitative is considered 'unnatural', even though we as a species evolved through a natural process on this planet. Fair enough we seem to be contributing to changes at a faster rate than any other species could do or has done in the past. As far as calling this environmental vandalism or destructive, irresponsible and 'bad' ... I'm not convinced. It is not good for our way of living, that's seems pretty clear, if we want to preserve how we live then we need to change our exploitation of the planet. However if we were looking at a species of ant that was going about it's business but in the process destroying it's habitat because it had no 'natural' enemies and grew beyond the limits of it's environment to support itself, it would eventually die out or be culled back severely by 'natural' selection and adaptation to changes it contributed to in the environment or it would simply become extinct.

Extinction is the normal trend for most all species that ever existed on this planet at one time or another. Whether that extinction was caused by itself, competition with another species or some 'natural' disaster is a mute point. We as a species seem pretty bent on changing things, and are very aggressively destructive in killing ourselves and dominating every other species on the planet and killing them off as well. As far as a natural process of change and evolution on the planet - the current climate changes are nothing different from what has happened countless times in the past over millions of years since 'life' first appeared on this planet. If you want to look at 4 billion years of history the most dominant state of this planet is a poisonous atmosphere of deadly gases to most all current life that exists, a very hot, dry place with a thick atmosphere and very little water or oxygen to sustain life. From this perspective the current state of the planet and how it has existed for the past 300 million years or so could actually be considered 'unnatural', certainly a lot different to how it was for the previous 90% of it's existence.

I'll probably be crucified here, but for all the hype about global warming, climate change and the 'death of the planet' I can't see how this is any different from what has been happening on this planet throughout it's entire history ... change. I agree that it's probably going to change dramatically how we will live on it, and we may even be unsuited to adapt to it from an evolutionary point of view and possibly become extinct along with most everything else and it may even be largely 'our fault' as to the pace of change. Just because we happen to be sentient beings with intelligence and understanding and can reason things out does not give us some 'get out of jail free' card in avoiding extinction in the longer term. If the environment changes dramatically enough for us not to be able to live here or we can not make significant change quick enough to sustain a livable planet for life as we know it, then we will inevitably go the way of the dodo. We can spend the next several decades blaming this and that, those people over there and ourselves if we like but change will come regardless of what causes it, and how fast it happens. Because we are intelligent enough to do something to slow the process of change, we should get on with it and do it - i.e. do the very thing that's a naughty and change the 'natural' process of change occurring in the environment that is happening now - as if the 'natural' change that is occurring is not natural because we, a natural species on the planet, have realised perhaps we contributed to it in a big way. As far as I can see it's all natural and part of the inevitability of change - even if we do kill ourselves and everything on the planet. Perhaps that's 'mother nature's' way of saying this type of sentient being (us) just wasn't quite right so let's start again, maybe another rein of 75 million years of dinosaurs ... they seem to have done something that lasted a long time, longer than we think we might be here anyway.

I'm talking bigger picture stuff here, so before people start responding with arguments about murder being a natural thing for a human to do so it must be right stuff, I'm not talking about right or wrong and putting a value judgment on this issue. I'm talking about us as a species on this planet considering ourselves not part of the natural evolutionary change that is indicative of this universe we know, when the Sun blows up in about four billion years or so and completely destroys this planet and everything on it, I'm wondering if we will still be around and saying "gee, we stuffed that up".

Note: I'm not staying we should just sit around and do nothing it's all going to change. I think we should do as much as we can to preserve what we would all like to have ... a livable planet that supports us all ... for as long as we can sustain it. Arguing over the pace of change being our fault and that we have been very naughty is only occurring because we consider ourselves as bad for environmental change as if our being here is unnatural. I'm not staying exploitation of the planet is OK because it's natural, just that that's what we as a species have naturally evolved to do. It's what we have done and continue to do, the question is how long will we continue to do it, my guess is for a long as we can until we are absolutely forced to change, adapt or become extinct. Unless collectively we as a species can come to grips with working together to for stall our extinction for as long a possible. The planet is no longer bigger enough not to notice to pee in the pool.

[DobDobDob]

Nice story Calin, well worded, good phrasing and well thought out.

[glenc]

Oil and Gas Companies did very well last year. If you look at profits, the top 21 companies include 9 oil and gas operators. They will resist the idea that GW is man made and they can afford to promote the idea (that it is not man made) because the total profits for those 9 companies was U$159 billion. ExxonMobil had a profit of U$36 billion, the world's biggest profit in 2006. Why are fuel prices going up?
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/29/06f2k_worlds-largest-public-companies_land.html

[Tiroch]

We have a situation on GW and HCC that is now controlled by politicians. It is out of the hands of the people (if it ever was in our hands). We did not create this situation. It was created by self-serving 'environmentalists' and industrial haters such as Maurice Strong and the UN and the EU.

It is a situation peculiar only to us in the wealthy part of the World - the Northern Hemisphere and that is because not only of the wealth but because the way the Earth works. Warming in the Northern Hemisphere is more pronounced than anywhere else due to Earth Axis Tilt changes.

It is not that warming is happening. It is that is the way it is.

It is not us except a bit causing the warming to come a bit faster then Earth cycles normally do.

So no point any longer flogging a horse that is already dead - so to speak.

Now await the Global Cold.

[xelasnave]

Hi Glen as I have said many times one should not ask a question if one does not know the answer...Same applies to a statement of “fact” and expected responses:) .

Sorry I saw the opportunity to make a point that what one is presented with via the TV is not necessarily a fact;) . And that goes for the net as well:) . Before I posted the reference to volcanoes being responsible for 100 times the carbon output I searched the net… It was rather obvious that the statements made about volcanoes could be supported or bunked according to the particular view of the authors:eyepop: . All that I could conclude was you could find support for either proposition finding the science was another matter. And that is the message here is we should all be careful of what we take on board as a fact.

The link you provided Glen offers the contrary view to volcanoes being responsible however I feel even that link leans a certain way:shrug: . The link says the output is “not determinable” (if it is not determinable how can we rely upon it?) yet from there to say such an estimate is “conservative” makes me question if a conclusion stated as being undetermined can then be used to provide a point from which relationships can be drawn. Does saying the estimate is conservative entitle any relationships to be drawn is my point.. It seems to me the “facts” are determined by who may be grinding the axe.

Without trying to prove the right or wrong of the proposition presented in that particular link I simply ask…Why would someone purporting to offer a scientific finding say…” Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time” immediately after an introduction “Reaching a good estimate is important in guiding global policy for standards to reduce emissions from man-made sources of gases”...then conclude on such uncertainty “Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times”. If one is going to use an observation as a fact maybe a “good estimate” should be more than a “good estimate” and things that are uncertain at this present time be established as somewhat certain, and not use an uncertainty further in the argument. I don’t think it is good science to approach science with leaps in logic.

If volcanoes are or are not going to get the blame perhaps we need a conclusive finding not one that is stated as conservative ..conservative says little of the real position I would think, as to me its says we don’t really know but it looks as if this is the case.

I have had a bit of a laugh with most stuff on the issue of GW:) .

When one finds something like this in a objective report..
(within one of the links you mentioned) http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece)
“Yet more recently, his main ally against the Kyoto Protocol, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard, has been forced into a U-turn by a massive Australian drought and an approaching election, announcing a ban on energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs”.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
One may stop and think could this reporter be grinding an axe:shrug: . One will be better armed to question motives and intentions of the author when finding jumps in emotion of this nature.
Now as I said a lengthy search of materials available on the net told me that one can find most well anything to support or to bunk whatever one wishes, however one should be always ready to question “the facts”.
The fact that I think is undeniable is that the science is hard to find because of the politics;) .

The watering down as you referred to Glen says it all in that department:thumbsup: .

Politics is a simple way of throwing a blanket over the vested interests who are offering “facts” ..and there are vested interests all through the debate. I simply say believe little of the “promoted science” and look to who is managing the “facts”.

Oil companies, nuclear power promoters, solar panel manufactures and even worm farm promoters, to mention just a few, can be very selective on what science they will use to promote their interests:) .

The answer to your question as to “why are fuel prices going up?” is somewhat simple:eyepop: .
Oil for all practical purpose has a monopoly on energy and those who control it take advantage of that situation. Add to that Governments preparedness to tax it at an obscene and excessive rate and profit by any hike in its price and we have a setting for the price of fuel to ever increase:) . Our Government takes advantage to the detriment of the consumer and does nothing to change the situation:mad2: . They stand to make more money as the price goes up which is hardly going to work in the consummers interest.

Even now more monopolies are being built in the petrol industry via the control being extended by the “food” chains over supply and pricing of petrol. The oil companies may get a big pay off out of oil but I suspect they are only but one of the players in the game:shrug: . How much does the Australian Government and the respective State Governments “earn” from petrol.??

Calin:):thumbsup: ..if I may call you Paul:) .. Paul you provide a reasonable and sound view and there is little one could disagree upon:thumbsup: . Change is the driver of evolution, change is the driver of economies, and change is good as it requires innovation to manage:) .
The only thing that gets me going about all this is the way folk like Mr Gore points out the problem and yet does little (or nothing) in changing his consumption to set an example and simply opens the door for all selling a solution..be they nuclear power folk or solar panel folk:) .
Also the preparedness of most to cry the sky is falling and seek short term band aids when the problem really comes down to the fact that some consume much yet expect others to pay the price:) .
It seems to me that human activity is speeding up what is probably a natural climate change:shrug: . The most reasonable scientific view I lean to is that we need to slow the process of pumping more crap into our atmosphere but prepare for a hotter planet where things will be different:eyepop: .
It seems that we are in for a climate change and that we as a species are probably hastening the process:eyepop: .
Will the change happen tomorrow or next century I don’t know but what I do know is there is much un necessary pollution of our planet that we should manage better irrespective of its long term implications. We could be cleaner and more responsible as a species. But if we are causing or adding to the change lets review our wasteful ways before we figure systems to continue current presumably unsustainable consumption.
Alex

[acropolite]

A convenient omission in the debate on carbon dioxide emission is that of forestry burnoff. Do a google search on "forestry burnoff causing drought", you may be surprised. Figures I've seen estimate carbon dioxide emission from forestry activity account for between 17 and 40% of global emissions and the argument that by planting more trees they are benefiting the environment simply doesn't stack up. Nasa's own scientists have suggested a link between drought in the Amazon basin and burnoff in that area.

[spearo]

Hey Paul,
well put, "classeeeque"
cheers
frank

[avandonk]

Problem!
My nest is nearly full!
Answer
It is OK since one in a thousand scientists says there is nothing to worry about!
I just died!
Thats OK it does not even register on how much profit we made!

You can all deny t'ill you die, WE are stuffing our life support system. You can can call me greenie, but you will get the world you deserve.

When I was ten years old I used to swim with platipi and thought at the time it was normal!

My roof still has about a dozen possums and they revel in what my garden has to offer.

Deny all you like or prefer. It will not change a damn thing!

You are all like the frog in the pot slowly heating, he will stay there until the water boils!
We must have bigger and better freeways until we cover the planet!

You are all fools if you think that human induced global warming is a plot.

SAD SAD SAD

bert

[mick pinner]

Fools eh Bert, sad indeed, maybe just a different point of view?

[avandonk]

Definition of a fool (mine),a person easily led with the most improbable hearsay and on the surface almost self evident 'evidence'. Repeat ad infinitum this is true!
A corrollary is 'produce' evidence that appeals to their lowest emotions and or fears.
I could go on.

Bert

All global warming evidence is in peer reviewed journals, not in the media as beat ups against!

[glenc]

"You are all like the frog in the pot slowly heating, he will stay there until the water boils!"
Well said Bert.

[Karls48]

If I’m fool I’m happy to be one. It is the fools who can see that emperor got no clothes.

[GrahamL]

Tiroch any chance of some abstracts/refrences to more of your posts ?
rants don't do much to roll on a fair debate on anything topical :)

[GrahamL]

edit double post

[sammyff]

I havn't seen the Al Gore movie, but I've heard a lot of talk about it. I heard a good point of view from a scientist recently who is of the opinion that global warming is a natural cycle, human activity is only a small part of it. Put basically, every ten thousand years or so there is an ice age on this planet. If you take some meat out of your freezer, it thaws out slowly while it is cold then speeds up through the later stages when it is warmer. The same thing is happening naturally to the earth. We have slowly been thawing out of the last ice age and we are now on that faster warming up period, the earth is returning to it's natural temperature. It has been established that the other planets in our solar system are also warming with us. Natural sources of warming such as solar activity, volcanic both surface and submarine, and some other factors, all speed up the process. Al Gore has made this movie, but apparently refuses to go into live debate with scientists, so what real credibility does the movie hold. Yes we are warming up, and the planet is changing, but it has done so before and will again. On the other hand, humans must clean up our act. We can't go on wiping out nature, demolishing forest etc. Once it's gone, so are we. I'm still in two minds but I tend to think mother nature is trying to tell us something, most of us are listening, but we have to convince those who are motivated by power and greed that enough is enough. Have a nice day.:)

[Argonavis]

You seem very coherent for a dead person. I assume that this is a deliberate oversimplication, not part of AGW hysteria. Climate is a complex system and nothing is straightforward. If you had believed what some are saying about feedback loops in the early modelling, we should all be suffering over 6-7 degree temperature increases, not 0.7 degree at the moment.




The world looks pretty good to me. The life support system is still working and will continue to do so.




I would assume that platypi normally avoid humans. This does not sound normal to me.





I hope you sleep well at night with all those possums in your roof.





I agree.




No. A frog will remove itself from a slowly heating pot when the temperature get intolerably hot.




Freeways cover only a small percentage of land, about 1.4% using UK data.





Not a plot, just unproven Bert. The temperature increases so far observed may easily be part of a natural rythym. If they are not I am very confident that our society will adapt and survive. No, prosper in fact.

[glenc]

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978). One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics...
While some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social problems, eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp

[mickoking]

Well put :thumbsup:

[Argonavis]

So does this mean you have disconnected from the grid and sold the pug, Glen?


The behaviour of fire is well known. The behaviour of the climate is not.

[Argonavis]

one of the "best" summary of the science is here:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/global_warming.html

Their conclusion:

"The scientific data is clear that global temperatures are rising. Although the amount of increase is probably within the range of natural variability for the last thousand years, the rate of increase is faster than at any other time during that period. Some of the increase may be due to a natural warming trend, although most of the increase is probably due to human influence."

probably? The case is not inconclusive. A lot of the graphs shown on this site are *too* perfect in their correlations. Real science is far messier and uncertain than that. Irrespective of this, it doesn't persuade me to join the religion, thank you.

Especially with Suzuki as a high priest, Glen. He may have been a good fruit fly geneticist in his day, but that was a long time ago. He is now a political activist.

[Argonavis]

I have found conclusive proof of global warming here...

[astroron]

To me it is nonsense to say we are not having an effect on the climate, where is all this pollution going if not into the atmosphere?.
If we have had global warming before that was before we had six billion people and a couple of billion vehicles and a billion cows and other pollution coursing things to add to the mix.
The Volcano's and forestry burning and clearing are just adding to the problem.
To the doubters what do you suggest we do? is all this stuff we read about and see on our television just a mirage?
I for one would like us to try to cut out pollution even if it is not coursing global warming.
As an astronomer for the last twenty years I believe the darkness of the sky
as decreased not only by light pollution but by aerosols in the atmosphere from all the vehicles and other polluting influences which reflect light over a greater area, just take Duckadang for example, when we went there in 1993 it was so dark that you needed a red torch to move about, now you walk around without needing a torch.
Just my two cents worth.
What is a PUG?

[glenc]

ArgoNavis if you bought a pug (or similar) it would help! :) My car can tow your trailer and your telescope. I will look after it for you if you like. There are two easy ways to reduce global warming, one is to buy a smaller car (5 - 7 L/100 km) and the other is to get a solar HWS. Also we will be able to buy grid solar for the same price as mains power soon. We can do something and save money! Why not?
You can disagree with David Suzuki but it is hard to disagree with:
"Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced."

[xelasnave]

Glen I agree with so much of your approach as to what can be done:thumbsup: however I feel one must be suspicious of any one who states …

"Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced."

I question if the authors report is upon “the facts” then perhaps a break up of whose investigations come down on the side “that it is a natural climate change and it is happening” and/or “is it concluded that humans are responsible”. Or does the 928 selected authors all say it is human induced? I suggest a break up of the issues and some numbers could be an impartial manner in which to present their conclusion. I feel grouping two issues such as they did destroys their impartiality of presentation of the issues…of which there be two not one.

Such a distinction is important when considering what firstly can be done and secondly should be done. I, maybe foolishly, see a plot clearly that certain interests are happy capitalise and introduce the answer that it is humans fault simply so they can provide the solution to a human induced problem. The inference being that if human induced then our goods and services will fix it... for this reason the distinction is vital. This does not mean I say ignore the problem but to address the real problem which is...it will be hotter. The relevance of if human induced comes in to see who is selling what.

From this point one can assume fairy that if the change is natural but human assisted there is little by way of a change in human behaviour that can prevent the hotter future. However by placing all the blame at the feet of humans, profit seeking humans step forward with solutions whereas I doubt if any action by humans can challenge the natural climate change even if the change is being hastened by human pollution. There is no will to do so ..the only evidence of any will is by the nuclear power lobby… save the Great Barrier Reef..go nuclear.. how transparent.. and one can make a boring list of examples of this nature.

So in that context there is a plot and it is unfortunate that emotions run so high on this issue that “the plot” can not be fairly assessed and the real issue of a hotter future be prepared for.

I find it curious that when Dr Suzuki is in town so is the nuclear power lobby. That smacks of politics not science irrespective if he is a pawn or a player.

A fine point but it comes down to facing the inevitable and preparing for it or believing that by changing human behaviour the problem will go away. I personally can not see it being fixed by a new approach to fuel used and I doubt if the problem will go away by changing from coal to nuclear fuel.

I doubt if humans can change their behaviour. Whilst that issue is being argued the climate appears to be getting hotter. The question should be considered... what can humans do to adapt to the new future... Installing nuclear power seems to be the flavour we get from all saying humans are at fault. One must see the problem as... it is coming, and it is somewhat irrelevant if humans are at fault or not (… humans won’t change until they are forced to but this does not mean we need fall for emotive crap clearly designed to confuse an important issue so goods and services can be sold.

And it is very good that we at least talk about the problems we each see in this area for if nothing else we each are attempting to bring about some change that may help in dealing with such an important issue. Just don’t get carried away by the sales hype from whatever quarter.

I ask how serious is our Government when so many simple things can be done to reduce energy consumption.. hot water is something that can be highly subsidised by Solar yet serious attempts to get it installed everywhere are minimal..

Our PM did not say global warming is upon us so let’s get the hot water heaters solar subsidised..or lets fund research for electric cars or follow up on many other valid options to consider.. no straight to consider nuclear and a labelling of any other solutions as “not real”… does that not suggest something? however he saw only nuclear as a solution.. I saw only a vested interest plot to capitalise on a good and wide add campaign to frighten kids and bamboozle adults.. And look at the many proposed tax solutions in the wings..tax it! that will fix it..mmm even the Government is capitalising on the sky is falling routine. I don’t deny there is a problem but much of the problem is the vested interests selling solutions to a problem humans will not, or can not fix… certainly not by nuclear power or higher taxes to curb green house gasses.
Alex

[glenc]

As I said before I think we can solve this problem without nuclear power. We can use solar, wind, wave, geothermal, hydro, gas etc

[Tiroch]

The following is attributed to author Lorne Gunter in Canada:

As to Suzuki he made a joke of himself recently on a cross Canada speaking tour using a diesel bus suited for 40 and riding with 8. He also has bad manners and has walked out when commentators queried him about GW. If he saw a glimmer that it is not us, he stormed out.
**********************

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

[DobDobDob]

Great posting Tiroch, but honestly....did you make this name up :whistle:

[xelasnave]

I think there is a case for all sides and this is the wonderful thing about humanity:) ...being positive and hopeful often produces a happy and positive outcome:) :thumbsup: … all the publicity will bring about some although possibly too little response and at a ground roots level:thumbsup: I for one having investigated my energy needs in Sydney am finding by changing a few things I will save money:eyepop: … and money motivates even me;) :) . It seems odd that we don’t personally take advantage of all the energy saving approaches because energy saved is finally more money in our pocket:eyepop: ...more money to buy astronomy gear:) :) :) .
Looking into going solar in Sydney was never a matter of saving the planet for me it was "if it costs me nothing at home for power would that not be nice to have in Sydney?":lol: :lol: :lol: .
I guess I am just a grey green capitalistic socialist who wants to save money or simply put human;) :) :whistle: .
alex:) :D :)

[glenc]

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&summit=AutosSummit05&storyid=2005-09-21T013927Z_01_KWA105917_RTRUKOC_0_U S-SPACE-MARS.xml)). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here (http://instapundit.com/archives/025681.php) and here (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011741.php)). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

[glenc]

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

[Tiroch]

To tailwag,

Yep I made this name up in 1976 for the name of my first attempt at my own business.

It goes like this:

I have three sons so it is:
Timothy is the ti
Robert is the ro
Christopher is the ch

So I created my 'original' business name. Not so as per the following.

When I got on the Net 10 years ago this past January and awhile later I decide to search the origin, if any, of Tiroch.

Well it turned out to be an obscure name from a village in Hungary and also to me an uncommon name in Austria. Actually I was in an EM dialog with a gal in Austria having the name Christine Tiroch. She was to ask here uncle the name source and get back to me. She never did.

In case any my have an interest this site is places named USA:

http://www.placesnamed.com/t/i/default.asp

Tiroch was there some long time ago but is not now.

Real Climate.org is a well known GW is us site. It maybe the short term Mars stuff is as inadequate as any here on Earth for declaring we the guilty. Fair game on that.

As to the stuff in my post well is it or not?

[glenc]

Michaels misquotes Hansen (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michaels-misquotes-hansen-again/)
Antarctic cooling, global warming? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/fr/))
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/fr/))
Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/are-temperature-trends-affected-by-economic-activity/)
Fox News gets it wrong (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/fox-news-gets-it-wrong/)
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/fr/))
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-ii-the-climatologists-return/)
Climate Change Disinformation (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-us-senator-on-climate-change-disinformation/)
Will-full ignorance (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/will-full-ignorance/)
George Will-misled and misleading (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/george-will-misled-and-misleading/)
The global cooling myth (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/fr/))
Strange Bedfellows (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/strange-bedfellows/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/strange-bedfellows/fr/))
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stickquot/)
What If … the "Hockey Stick” Were Wrong? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/fr/))
Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/)
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/fr/))
Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last! (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/)
How to be a real sceptic (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/)
The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/) (http://www.realclimate.org/sp.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/sp/))
Senator Inhofe on Climate Change (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/senator-inhofe/)
CO2 Fertilization (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/)
Calculating the greenhouse effect (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/)
Good climate debate FAQ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/good-climate-debate-faq/)
Bush on "The Fundamental Debate” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/bush-on-the-debate/)
Incurious George (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/incurious-george/)
Heat Rising at the Washington Post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/the-heat-is-rising-at-the-washington-post/)
Open Thread on Lindzen Op-Ed in WSJ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/)
Lindzen: point by point (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/)
Thank you for emitting (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting/)
Global cooling, again (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-again/)
Cuckoo Science (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) (http://www.realclimate.org/fr.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/fr/))
English vineyards again…. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/)
Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/)
Inhofe’s last stand (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/)

[Tiroch]

I see you love Real Climate site which I wrote is a known GW is us site.

As in any politicized matter it is who that has the biggest bucks that wins and governments have by far the biggest bucks (ours) and media run with the flavour of the 'month'. Both have declared us the Guilty Party and as such any that denies this is branded akin to a heretic. Reminds of the Inquisition.

To dispute, or more rightly ignore, the Solar System elements are not warming is amazing. I asked are they or not?

Too much of the GW writing displays a complete ignorance of Earth Climate History.

Yes it is warming. Yes we are guilty to making the warming come faster by a wee bit. No we can't stop it. Yes we will spend trillions on a fruitless endeavour while ignoring real problems. Yes the normal condition of Earth is much warmer than now. No we cannot stop the following Ice Age.

Who do we think we are?

[glenc]

I would rather read science sites like Real Climate than opinion and propaganda sites. The US and Australian governments and the big media players used to side with the skeptics. Rupert Murdoch recently changed course. Bush and Howard tell us they are no longer skeptics.

[Tiroch]

Hi glenc,

Each you mentioned are either media or politicians. None are qualified. Supports my earlier point.

As I wrote Real Climate is a site devoted to blaming us.

So is the obvious happening or not: A warming of objects in our Solar System?

[glenc]

"So is the obvious happening or not: A warming of objects in our Solar System?" The Earth is getting warmer, the Sun and planets are not.

Generally speaking the media controls elections and big business controls government. In Australia the government supports the coal industry and they are climate skeptics.

[iceman]

Guys,

This thread has gone on for long enough. I'm sure there are forums devoted to debates about global warming, with a much greater audience and input than the few who are left debating it here.

Thanks.