the hysteria just does not stop

[Argonavis]

20 years after warning the US about global warming, James Hansen told US Congress today that "the situation has got so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23915307-30417,00.html

un believable - it should read:

20 years after warning the US about global warming, there is no global warming....

[Argonavis]

and the current Federal government proposes an appalling carbon tax to reduce everyone living standards by increasing the cost of energy.

and if anyone thinks I am making a political statement, the previous Federal government also proposed the same, only their time frame was more relaxed.

[Argonavis]

What with massive increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last few decades, you would think that temperatures should be several degrees higher?


perhaps the CO2 forcing used in the IPCC models are horsemanure

perhaps the IPCC is just a load of fertiliser

perhaps they - gasp :scared: got it wrong?

will they ever admit their error?

[sjastro]

Latent heat and global dimming are two major reasons.

[leon]

I Think this climate change and global warming is just a natural occurance through out the Earths history, it has happened before, and it will happen again.

Although we are probably not helping the situation, we just happen to be in the middle of the cycle.

I think the hysteria we hear of dome and gloom, is a load of crap.

Fossil fuel burning was much greater back in the early days, when it was the only source of heat for the millions of homes across the globe.

Try riding a bike, or motor bike through the the streets of London when all the coal fires were gushing out plumes of thick black smoke, within ten minutes your face would be black with soot.

Today, there is not a chimney in sight, well maybe a few, and although motorised vehicles have increased 50 fold, the levels are less.

I will probably be shot down in flames here, but I for one am not holding my breath, to look for cleaner air, I'm happy with what we have now.

Leon :thumbsup:

[mark3d]

theres vested interests on both sides... i dont think its healthy to have a firm opinion either way. the logical conclusion is "we may well be impacting the earth lets look at ways to ensure we dont stuff it further"

i tend to believe science as it has led us out of the dark ages to where we are today


.

[Rob_K]

Phew, thanks fellas! :) Here I was thinking doom and gloom, but obviously the very best science we've got has completely stuffed up again, despite decades of data collection & modelling. Idiots! Dunno why they didn't just ask you guys in the first place! :thumbsup:

Cheers -

[TrevorW]

Hey these guys invented the atomic bomb and where has that got us !!! Scientists in some ways are no different to most people their ego tends to take control, "Hey look at me , see what I've invented" without any thought to the 10th degree as to the ulitmate outcomes of their creativeness.

The Earth will take care of itself after man is long gone.

:welcome::anaut::stupid::thumbsup:

[renormalised]

It's not so much a case of hysteria as it's a case of the media not understanding any of the science behind it and reporting on what little they do know. That some climate scientists are pushing this the way they are is more the case of them being over zealous about their beliefs than the real science. Sure, concentrations of CO2 have risen over the last 100 years, and especially over the last 50 or so years. However, what they don't tell you is that there's a lot more to the way the climate works (both short and long term) than they're saying. It's not just the simple "we've pumped CO2 into the atmosphere and it's causing global warming". It does, that is not a disputed fact, but there are many other factors which go into the warming and/or cooling of our planet. Quite a few of which they're still yet to get their heads around.

However, given that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, we should be erring on the side of caution. In any case, there are other reasons as to why we should be looking for alternative energy sources, and doing it quickly. One is...we're running out of oil and there are better ways of using it than burning the stuff. Oil is so important in many other manufacturing processes that we'd be better of conserving what we have for those purposes. I would much rather see us develop energy alternatives that'll replace oil and nuclear fission as our main sources of power. And I don't mean wind or tidal power because they're never going to be anything other than stopgap sources of energy for smaller scale, regional power supply systems. They're not as reliable as what many people think. However, what we need to do is concentrate on perfecting solar energy, new forms of power storage and look to some of the more exotic possible ways of generating power and put research money into those. They're for the medium to long term, but solar and power storage are shorter term solutions. In the meantime, we should try and cut down on petrol/diesel usage and move more towards LPG and hybrid technologies.

[mark3d]

decentralised energy production is where it is at.

all the forms of alternative energy put together. one i think is particularly exciting is harnessing all the wasted kinetic energy - convert that to electricity and we wont have to think about power again.

e.g. making the turnstile at a train station a mini generator. ive heard of spring technology in floors - just walking on them creates energy. such brilliant ideas!

in 100 years the idea of a central power station burning coal to make electricity will make us look like cavemen! :)


.

[toyos]

Sounds like you all haven't travelled overseas much :D Try visiting some of the world's most populated cities where there are more souls in one city than the whole of Australia combined.

[snowyskiesau]

Be thankful we don't live in one of these (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-06/worlds-10-dirtiest-cities) cities!

[casstony]

There's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history, a leading ice scientist says.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/27/national/a144022D43.DTL&hw=ice&sn=001&sc=1000
Polar bears are not happy.

There was another interesting article in the SF Chronicle recently suggesting we are about to see the onset of a new Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum refers to reduced solar activity that led to the "Little Ice Age" a few hundred years ago. We should be so lucky.

[Karls48]

I totally agree with Leon and I expressed my views on Global Warming many times before. More then that I’m convinced that some people and corporations will make heaps of money from this current fashion and great majority of us will pay for it. Housing boom is over for long time to come, so there is a need for some new scheme how to part me and you from our cash.

[dugnsuz]

Recently watched the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
Found it most illuminating and by no stretch of the imagination hysterical doom and gloom.
From the data presented in the movie, global warming would appear to be a problem quickening it's pace - easily demonstrated to run hand in hand with booms in population growth and mass industrialization
Climate patterns are cyclical as stated, but it would seem the human race is helping this current one along a bit - the graphic depletion of North and South polar ice caps and the projected effects really would create some doom and gloom for many people.

As I don't follow the climate debate religiously I'm at a loss to explain the polarization of opinion as there surely can't exist 2 sets of opposing data concurrently!!??

Or perhaps like Mr Gore's analogy, we are all just frogs sitting in the slowly heating water!
Frog 1: "Jeez mate, it's getting a bit hot,eh?"
Frog 2: " Shut-up you idiot, where's your evidence!"

[avandonk]

Show us the graph before 1998! A bit selective. Otherwise I will.

What is it about global warming skeptics that they cannot see the data when it is put in front of them!

Just like those mental giants of science that pass for commentators at the Australian newspaper you are totally wrong! Or is that commentators that pass for mental giants at science!

Here is a start

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/projections2001.pdf

Bert

[Glenhuon]

I'm sitting here shaking my head at the continuing scepticism. The climate is changing (I avoid "Global Warming", it only covers part of the problem). It is without doubt a combination of natural cycles and human activity making it worse. Melting ice caps, increasingly violent storms, record flooding, record drought conditions, the list goes on. We need to start planning for the changed conditions. Politicians, Bean Counters and Stock Exchange suits seem to only see it as a means of making money (Taxes, Carbon Trading Schemes, Doubtful "Green" inventions etc). To coin that old saying "You can't eat money"
Keep your heads in the sand guys, so when it really gets going and bites you on the bum, you won't see it coming.

Bill

[Ric]

I think I shall keep practicing what I preach. Permaculture and self sufficiency while planting a few more carbon sinks (trees) on the farm.

Does it really hurt to have a cleaner greaner world?

Think globally, act locally.

[renormalised]

No it doesn't and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it's been something that for most part has fallen on deaf ears because most people either can't give a hoot, don't understand what to do (if anything) or don't want to change because it's all too hard and inconvenient.

[marki]

I agree. The burning of crude oil is almost criminal when you consider that we have no viable replacement and the extent to which many compounds only found in crude and coal play in our manufacturing processes. Fact is that aromatic compounds such as benzene, a large number of alicyclics and aliphatics are very difficult if not impossible to make in a lab and if you think alternate methods to harness energy are expensive.....

I strongly suspect that our actions are having an effect on climate but do not believe that we are the sole cause. We have at best a couple of centuries of data and the cycles which govern the worlds climate are bound to be a little more complex than that. You only need to watch the weather forcasts on the nightly news to see that we clearly do not understand nor have the ability to accurately predict our climate, even in the short term. But you must admit that a large portion of the worlds biodiversity is being adversley affected by our actions and that is never a good thing. That said I am all for renewable energy sources as they present a great technical challange and will in time become far more efficient than just setting things on fire to create heat for whatever purpose. As they become more common the expense will fall and the greedy people will still get rich so its win win.

[Ric]

Very true indeed, we just have to keep pushing the message, the change will happen and the others will be dragged along with it as well.

Two years ago only a few Australian cities turned out their light for an hour, this year it was half the globe for an hour. Who knows what next year will be like.Maybe lights out all night :thumbsup:

An interesting thought is that global warming leads to increased cloud cover, not a good thing for amateur astronomers. It's definitely in our own interests if anything to do something.

Cheers:)

[tornado33]

The problem is, its like asking the question should we prepare fpr a devastation meteor impact? many say it will not happen in our lifetime so why worry. But then it could. We just dont know. We havent surveyed every Earth crosser that can threaten us.

Going on past climate records re. climate change may not help. You see, never in the history of the Earth has a life form appeared that is capable of burning most of all the hydrocarbons in the Earth.s crust. Thus, the long term result of this is not known.

My person belief is that climate change on a massive scale is being held back by Earths natural thermostats, the oceans, the fact that warmer temps. mean more evaporation hence more cloud which reflects some heat away. However like any thermostat, it has limits and when it "runs out of adjustment" things may get bad real quick.

Ironically Im a person with least to lose with climate change, as I dont have children who must face the consequences of this climate change.

Anyway climate change may be a moot point if worldwide economies collapse because of the ongoing rise in oil prices. How would Australia cope if petrol was $3/litre, what about $5/litre?

When I go to work (on the bus) I see car after car zipping past with only 1 person in them, and many of them are larger cars as well. Fancy needing a shell of 1 or 2 tonnes of metal to move you around, powered by technology developed 100 years ago. Instead there should be electric vechicles weighing no more than 500 kg powered by the latest lithium chemestries, offering 500km+ ranges, 110 kph speed and thousands of charge/discharge cycles, charged either from solar arrays on our houses or using cheap off peak power overnight. Imagine speding only a few dollars a week in travelling expenses.

They talk of Moores Law in computers wheer one day they will stop getting faster and better because the circuits cannot be made any smaller. Well moors law of transport has stopped already, as our cars arent getting any better. They are instead getting heavier and more powerful, not more efficient.

[renormalised]

"Moore's Law" on Transport was surpassed decades ago. The internal combustion engine is obsolete technology that's had its day.

[renormalised]

The price may not hit that high soon, but in the medium term it will, and then what??. I can only say that the oil companies, the people who own and run them, and the pollies that are in their spheres of influence (ie. George Bush and family, Dick Cheney and Co, etc, etc) will do nothing to prevent it. They'll mouth platitudes and try half baked means to placate everyone else, but all you'll see (and it's happening now) is a mad scramble for what little is left of the resource and a mad dash to look for other oil/gas fields wherever they can find them. Meanwhile, they keep getting richer at everyone else's (and the planet's) expense.

[Ric]

I regretfully think of what could have been.

If the governments of the day say 20 years ago and doesn't matter which one as they are all guilty of short sightedness. If they had they forethought and the balls to stand up and invest in solar technology I could only imagine the level of technology that we would be at.

No doubt every house would be on soloar power and feeding the grids thus reducing the need for those big power funnels spewing out all those gases. Instead we choose to make it harder for people to get solar power and put solar power companies out of business thus making sure big businesses still get their massive quarterly profits.:screwy:

As Scott mentioned how far developed would the electric car have been developed if the government had developed the ideas instead of letting the car companies shelve the prototypes.

The so called crackpots were as right then as the so called crackpots of today are.

Cheers:)

[acropolite]

The sad thing about what's happening now is that it could have been avoided.

We're stuck in an unsustainable lifestyle, global warming or not, things have to change.

IMO there are 3 parties at fault.

The car companies could have acted decades ago to make more fuel efficient cars, but chose not to until the 11th hour.

The oil companies simply waited until demand exceeded supply and are now reaping the rewards.



Finally consider our federal government.

They were fully aware that the time would come when fossil fuels became scarce and that most experts (Will excepted :P) agreed that global warming was reality.

They have done little (almost nothing) to encourage development of alternatives and renewables and a lot to assist polluters such as the coal, uranium and forestry industries.

They are still doing the same, having just introduced new legislation, similar to the existing MIS, legislation that allows 100% Tax writeoff for carbon sequestration tree plantations with absolutely no strings attached. A coal company, for example, can buy valuable farmland and plant with trees, write the investment off in the first year then on sell to another company to harvest, the trees don't even have to be left growing.

This Tax avoidance scheme will further increase the damage being already being done to our rural sector by existing MIS schemes. If you're curious as to what effect MIS schemes are having on the rural sector visit the Sustainable Agricultural Communities Australia Website (http://www.saca.org.au/radio.html).

When carbon trading comes in to play the heavy polluters will be using Tax dollars, that would otherwise flow in to our taxation coffers, to offset their pollution.

[renormalised]

This carbon trading is a complete joke. No matter how much they try and offset pollution by planting trees, they could never plant enough of them to do anything to change the levels, anyway. Takes a tree years to get to the stage that it's efficient enough to absorb large amounts of CO2 and yet they're trying to convince (rather effectively I might add) everyone that it's the greatest idea around and that it'll be one of the magic bullets. Anyway, the greatest carbon sink on the planet isn't the forests, it's the oceans and that's where the vast majority of the CO2 goes.

[Karls48]

I think that biggest misconception of those who believe in Global Warming and those who are sceptical about it is that both sides do not accept the fact that nothing is permanent on this planet or indeed in whole Universe. Weather changes, life forms extinct and other one take their place and even hardest rock will crumble and the sun will stop shining, eventually. Those who cry about lost of biodiversity, about leaving the world as it was for future generations are kidding themselves. Species come and go – those who can adapt will survive and those that cannot will die out. Some other species will arise to take up niche environment left vacant by extinct species. We, the Homo Sapient will not last forever either unless we take active steps to prevent new species of humans from developing (for which we got means but not will).
People who blame current numbers of livestock for Global Warming due to methane production are same people who cry about disappearance of wast herds of wild grazing animals in America, Africa and Asia. What is the difference in the methane gas produced by bison or elephant and a cow? You have to make up your mind – you either accept creation as you starting world view (and then I’m wrong in my arguments) or you accept evolution theories and that have to be your starting point on assessing the world around you.
Blaming governments and different corporations for current state of development of our society is highly hypocritical. You live in democratic society and you and your fellow citizens had very easy option to change course of the policies (you did not have to take up gun and start revolution to change things). But you enjoyed and thrive in what you call now bad and corrupt decisions of past governments. So please shut up about the past you and me are very much part of it.
I accept that our exploitation of oil and coal have a part in current changing weather pattern. However, if it is for our benefit or not remains to be seen. Eventually those resources would come to surface and realise their carbon content to the atmosphere anyhow. So we did it bit earlier then nature would do it

[marki]

You have used evolutionary theory as a basis to your argument but have neglected to acknowledge that evolution through the process of natural selection takes millions of years to occur in response to small changes in the environment. Some other species will not just spontaneously evolve to replace those that are lost and although as in all systems there is a certain degree of flexibility to accept and adapt to change, the Earths equalibrium is quite fragile and needs to cared for by those species which have the capacity to understand, reason and make the necessary changes to prevent mass extinction (as opposed to those that cannot control flatulence :D). As a science person I am naturally sceptical of wild claims about the loss of biodiversity and the causes and possible effects of global warming but I am certainly not so foolish to accept the loss of our natural world as tough biccies. I do not know what the outcome would be for us or our children if such an event occured but I do know future generations will thrive if it stays as pristine as possible (now I'm being speciest). As for democratic choice in Australia, that would have to be the biggest joke of all!!! We have surrendered our rights to vote for change by allowing the existance of cashed up powerful lobby groups who dictate policy in this country no matter which party happens to be in power at the time.

[casstony]

I reckon we need to give women a shot at running the world. Male dominance has outlived its usefulness. The girls could humor us by letting us kill some things now and then, but we really aren't equipped to run a planet.

[marki]

Take Margret Thatcher for example:P :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D.

Seriously though, if it means all men are relegated to pointless pursuits such as amature astronomy, I would happily concur :D.

[casstony]

Margret Thatcher is no woman. Doctor Who is real. :D

[marki]

Ahhh but have you ever considered that Dr Who could be Margret Thatcher in drag or vice versa:fight:they are both british and appear to have multiple personalities :D:D:D:D:D:D.

[Karls48]

Marki, the extinction of dinosaurs and its kind was unlikely produced by slow environmental change taking millions of years. But, yes you are right. For new species to evolve it takes long (by our perception) time. Its not that I don’t give hoot about losing pristine environments that existed in past times. But, realistically what can we do about it. To preach to the people in Africa, Asia or South America who live on $1 a day that they should not develop their resources and leave they countries pristine is a big hypocrisy. After we plunder any available natural resources all over the globe for past coupe thousand years and build our wealth, we got no right to demand anything regarding environment from developing countries. Regardless of that, they will not listen to us anyhow.
Any measure that will lower our standard of living will produce outcry of protests and will lead to the fall of government of that time. And you cannot change our impact on environment without lowering living standards.
Short of some natural catastrophe that will wipe out 90% of human population things will only get worse.
“We have surrendered our rights to vote for change by allowing the existance of cashed up powerful lobby groups who dictate policy in this country no matter which party happens to be in power at the time.”
Yes this is true. But no one held the gun to our head to accept it. We did it because those making big profits let some crumbs of their wealth fall our way. That is the cleverness of democratic societies. Chances of revolution in most of developed, well to do countries, is at present time virtually zero. And revolution is the only way how you can change the system.
Just spare though for people living in those non-democratic countries. Same as here the rich run the country, but there are very few crumbs of the wealth that is allowed to fall down to the general population.

[marki]

I agree that it would be difficult to change the mind set of third world leaders, especially when you consider their hardships as they look at us consuming so much of the planets resources. However as an eternal optimist I must ask myself why you would make the same mistake again? Surely the undeveloped world is an ideal opportunity to do things differently and developed nations have a vested interest in making sure this happens. Why build smog polluting power stations when you could use alternate methods. I mean access to the sun is hardly a problem in Africa. Research into eco friendly chemistry (green chemistry) is moving forward in leaps and bounds and could actually end up cheaper for a large number of processes as the solvents can be reused where they are often lost in traditional methods. Sure we will keep pulling resources out of the ground but we could use these more efficiently then we do now considering the waste we generate. Working smarter has got to benefit all of us, we really have just been too lazy to change.

I saw a program on TV a couple of months ago that compared resource use between the USA and Europe. The europenes used less than half of what Americans use when population Vs consumption is compared yet the standard of living is not drastically different, in the west anyway which is where the comparison was made. I really admire what is happening in Germany with individual townships providing their own power through renewable sources and being able to sell the excess back into the grid. Yes the govt has rigged it but so it should as the less dependence we have on oil and coal the better and it may even force the republican party to find something else to do besides start wars everytime it gets into office. The people producing the electricity have not only gained a cheaper energy source but also a sense of independence that they did not have before.

As for democratic society "viva la revolution"

[cahullian]

It's amazing to think that 100 years ago there were more electric cars on the road than combustion engine. The technology is and always has been there. The problem with modern society is everyone wants more,more,more. More money, more things e.g telescopes eye pieces (how many members here in this forum have several scopes and dozens of eye pieces and more than one car and more than one house and more than a couple of pairs of shoes and more than one bank account and more than one job and,and ,and.... we are all guilty of wanting more) Who has more than one tv in the house? The list is endless. The planet could house 6 billion or more people but not 6 billion greedy people not even 500 million greedy people and there's a lot more than 500 million greedy people out there. The stock market is not a good thing as all the businesses there need to make more money every year for their share holders so do the planet a favour and sell everything you own and go live in a cave for the next 50 years and all will be well with the world. We humans are quick to adapt to change and we may survive global warming in less numbers but that may not be a bad thing as there will be lots more stuff for those that are left to have and we can start the buying cycle all over again.

Gazz

[ving]

ahh cool!... i mean hot, the threads not closed yet and i get to reply!

global warming is a fact (and a natural patern). only such an egotistical species as our own could posibly think we can control nature. I mean we are powerful and invincible arent we? I think that in our infinte natural patern reversing powerful (egotistical) intellegence we should just build another ozone layer... or no! a forcefield that blocks any unwanted UV light,stabilises the atmosphere (for us astro geeks), and gives a warm sunny 25 degrees all year round....

BAH! stoopid humans!

global warming? may car has been completely covered in ice every morning for the past week... at least. i live in sydney!
global warming? the summer previous to last we bought a little 3' deep wading pool to escape the heat at home cause it was blistering! last summer we didnt bother putting it up as it just didnt get anywhere near as hot... shouldnt it have been warmer?
global warming? Bah!

bring onthe ice age i say!

[ving]

but wait theres more...

maybe what we should be paying attention to is air quality and water quality... clean air is hard to find...

[jjjnettie]

They'll keep on paying for it.
We're addicted to our cars and I can't see many people wanting to give them up. Especially those who live out in the sticks and need our own transport.

We need an alternate fuel source NOW.

[fringe_dweller]

the opposing powerful forces at play in this debate are very interesting, self preservation should always win out?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23915711-401,00.html

'Prosecute climate change liars - NASA expert
By staff writers and wires
June 24, 2008 03:45pm

NASA expert wants climate change liars tried
Says fossil fuel companies blocking improvements
Warns world leaders only have two years to act
THE heads of major fossil fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist.

Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a US Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago, Fox News reported.

He returned to the US capital yesterday to speak to US lawmakers about what he believes is a global warming "emergency" .

"Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Dr Hansen wrote in an opinion piece posted on the WorldWatch Institute website to coincide with his visit to Washington.

"Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming."

Do you think companies should be prosecuted? Tell us below

Dr Hansen said fossil energy companies were aware of the negative, long-term consequences of their business.

"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," he wrote.

Dr Hansen said urgent action was needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt.

He said world leaders had only one or two years to act before the Earth reaches a "tipping point" with major consequences to the global climate and species survival.

"We have reached an emergency situation," Dr Hansen said.

He said the US Government should not keep the proceeds from any carbon tax they may levy, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel efficient technology.

The CSIRO yesterday released a report saying Australia's proposed carbon tax was nothing to fear as incomes would rise more quickly than energy prices.

- with Reuters'

but then imposing onerous obstacles to economic development is also a crime against humanity? shouldnt that be a crime against the planet? or god or garden of eden? if so inclined

[fringe_dweller]

re stopping hysteria maybe a bex and a good lie down would help, or a ***** slap like in the movies, to which we would respond, awakened from our stupor, thanks i needed that? like they do

[xelasnave]

We may be causing it we may not but to think we can stop it if it is us is stupid..wonthappem..whatwillhappeis maybusiesseswilltakeadvatageofthefe arandoffersolutiosthatwillpaythemwe ll.
Sorrythiskeyoardisstuffed.
alex

[madtuna]

Global warming probably stuffed it Alex :D

[ving]

that will be the humidity cause by global warming that is making your spacebar sticky... :P

[marki]

Don't forget light pollution. Think of all the fuel we burn driving 1oo+ km to find dark skies coz the ones in the cities are very average.

[netwolf]

When petrol prices hit 80cents we complained we did the same when they hit 90, 1.00. 1.10, 1.20... and now 1.60. We all complained at the increasing cost. But what did we do about it? Have we as a whole changed this rising trend? As someone pointed out earlier and I have seen this back in India also. In India there was a time when most people where on 2 wheelers, now more can afford 4 wheelers and so now we have more cars with 1 person in them. If petrol costs are having such a huge impact on our lives then what have we the people done about it?

Forget the politicians, this is something that is in our hands to change. Carpooling was like a passing fad and never really took hold. Most people like the independence/freedom of there own vehicle. But we still complain.

Regardless of the problem the only question is what am I doing about it?
What does it mean otherwise to be a Citazen? If we can not excercise control over ourselves, if we are not interested to learn the truth ourselves. Then there is no hope. Blame whoever we like, ignore what ever we like, then live with what happens to us.

Give to the poor, plant a tree, carpool, use public transport, turn of a unused light, dont waste water we don't need governments for this work.
If fuel is 1.60 then half it by sharing the cost, very simple but it needs us to reach out to our neighbor and share.
Perhaps we can not change the weather, but we can change ourselves.



Regards
Fahim

[renormalised]

Well said, Fahim. But we all bear responsibility, and so do the governments and those producing the stuff as well. However, it's the general public that can make the real changes, if they'd only open their eyes, minds and be a bit more critical in their thinking.

[xelasnave]

I agree to a degree Fahim however there are forces at work that corrupt the market such that one must wonder if it may be wise to regulate the market...why because the market allows for greed and waste of resources and it matters not that some decent folk seek to do the right thing etc.....
I use less energy than anyone in this country I bet..I store my own rain water..no desalination fees, no energy to pump it around town...I generate my own electricity for my humble electric appliances... and lately I have been sharing transport costs;):whistle:

Anyways as I said I feel there is no action that will head off any human input to the problem...and from all I have read it seems the Earth has had many many many changes in its climate..presumably those earlier changes were without the input of humans...and things changed back ..without the input of humans...

However global warming is the new industry... just look at those earning very good livings from pointing out the problem or attending conferences to dribble on about what to do... so many involved are hypocrites... talk talk talk but on a personal level do nothing but consume and waste as a capitalist economy demands of us...

alex

[mark3d]

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080702-The-changing-state-of-the-climate-system.html


.

[xelasnave]

So I expect when I go to Sydney that I will find the lights of office buildings are now turned off at night, and that v8s are banned from the city..and a list of small things that can be done now are being implemented..no?? pity as these simple moves will at least show someone is acting to implement change....but all I will find is folk selling low energy lights for homes and more efficient shower nozzles simply to play at doing something real and effective...
AND so I say..given the problem is here by most accounts what is being done apart from some smarties profiting from the fear etc.

alex

[Karls48]

“the opposing powerful forces at play in this debate are very interesting, self preservation should always win out?”

It will always win! 99.999% of those who are horrified by destruction of the nature we are inflicting on our environment will without any second thought break pick handle over the head of last Koala in whole world and cook it on the fire made of last Wollondilly pine, if chips are down and he and his family are starving. I have many times posted my opinions and have been blasted for it. I’m not saying what’s right or what’s wrong. I just look on the reality of things. After living in three different countries with three different political systems and spending considerable time in developing South Asian country I got reasonable clue of the problems this world is facing and impossibilities of finding solutions under current political systems. But, depside of what I am I’m not hypocrite. I recognise that for me to maintain my standard of living I have to screw up few hundreds of people somewhere in the word to enjoy my good living standards. I’m over sixty now and I got four years old kid. The slogans of “leave it for our children” does fall on deaf ears with me. I have to make my way thru tough times after the Second World War that was not of my making. As for my kid - what ever we left for him he have to make best of it. That’s evolution and survival of fittest.
All of you that think that switching off few lights or developing electric car is going to make any real difference you are kidding yourself. There is something like 4 billion people that will require terawatts of electric power and millions of tones of steel ,copper ,aluminium and the rest of the resources just to get close to our standard of living. And most of that power will come from burning coal or oil. And if you want to have right to tell rest of the developing world what to do, well then be satisfied with your salary dropping down to about $8000 a year with costs of living remaining basically same.
There are many problems for the future and there are no solutions for it as yet. When the things will get rally bad, solutions will come up and those solutions will be drastic. Right now only long term assets worth having is gold, food producing land and energy stocks. Right or wrong, that’s how I see it with livelong experience living in different continents with different political systems.

[fringe_dweller]

damn good thoughtful reads/thoughts/ideas here folks!

yep and which way does self preservation end game, life and death, backs to the wall type situations ALWAYS mean for humans all thru histories, cannibalism - let the great feast/BBQ begin! watching history channel has taught me that much, we managed to chew our way thru the neanderthals didnt we? mmm koala sarnie! i think koalas might be toxic to eat due to their diet tho?

[marki]

Hey, shouldn't we be a little more ecologically minded before we chuck them on the BBQ? I say squeeze the eucalyptis oil out of the little buggers first... I heard its good for colds and cleaning stuff...

:P:D:lol:

[g__day]

A few thoughts:

1. Proportional responsibility - largest developed nation - USA - contributes most of the problem, ponder they should bear most of the solution

2. Planetary weather cycles every 11,000 years aren't well understood, so our predictions and there accuracy could be fuddled.

3. As China industrialises on steroids and at hyper-pace the complexity of the problem is only going to get hairer

[MarkN]

When I read:
James Hansen and his NASA mob used an algorithm in their modelling that would have ensured the now infamous "hockey stick" outcome regardless of whatever input was made.

That this same "hockey stick" graph failed to show any significant variation at the time of the Medieval Warming or the Maunder Minimum - not to mention the Dalton Minimum

That various "climate models" failed to predict now known outcomes even with all the latest data.

That global temperatures ceased rising in 2001.

I know we have been sold a pup!

As has often been stated, Australia with its 20 odd million people could revert to the stone-age tomorrow and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to this problem if it exists at all. It is nothing but national grandstanding by Rudd, Wong, Garrett and Garnaut. Not to mention the ABC which goes absolutely orgasmic over this subject.

Phew! I'll go and have that Bex now.

Peace to all,

Mark.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." – Bertrand Russell.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them." - George Orwell.

[GeoffW1]

Aha Alex,

I warn you.........I have defined myself a pilgrim, if you annoy this Sydneysider you will be fined $5500 :rofl:

Ridiculous, no? :screwy:

Cheers

Geoff (the 19th)

[avandonk]

I now present for you a few graphs. Make up your own mind.

Bert

Note the CO2 concentrations lag the temperature by about a thousand years in the first graph. This is not a problem as we were not around to affect things. The ice ages are caused by the Milankovitch cycle and then drive CO2 up as the Earth warms to have a positive feedback system.

Never in a very long time has the CO2 concentration got to these levels. We ignore this at our peril.


Bert

[Ric]

Very interesting Bert, the natural variations show up nicely. But there is nothing natural about the last few hundred years.

If possible could you post the links to these papers or reports, I'd like to have a read of them.

Cheers

[Lee]

Even if fossil fuel burning is causally linked to global warming, reducing Australias emissions with whatever taxes you like won't do squat on a global level. Carbon offsets is another OH&S - expensive consultants fuelling a way to keep them gainfully employed. At least OH&S has saved some peoples skins (I think....).

[Ian Robinson]

Well at least the idiots in the whitehouse can't point at us now as fellow clmate change recousetrants, and maybe their days in power are numbered too.

[casstony]

While sitting in a waiting room today I read an article about the new large scale fusion reactor being built in France. Unlike previous efforts this one is predicted to be large enough to produce greater energy output than the input; 50MW in for 500MW out I think they said, so long as the 100 million degree plasma doesn't escape it's magnetic containment:scared:. How cool would it be to be working on that experiment - could solve our energy problems in a few decades.

[MarkN]

Well, what do we have here? Oh, a couple more pretty graphs.

I hope the attached doc. comes through OK. Pasted to a Word file to cut out superfluous matter. The letter itself is whole.

Note the list of signatories. Are these people all dills?

(Oh dear, Sen. Bob Brown's name is not among them! Must be worthless.)

Mark.

[Argonavis]

No they are not dills. They have looked at the evidence, and no doubt like me found that there was none.

I would like to take an historical trip back to James Hansen’s testimony to the US Congress in 1998 (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf), specifically to the graph on the last page titled “Annual Mean Global Temperature Change”. Both Observed temperatures and Scenarios A, B and C are presented.

Scenarios A, B and C were incorporated into WG1 of the IPCC. Scenario A was if the world did nothing about its emissions of plant food (CO2). The other scenarios covered lower emission levels of CO2, where the world agreed to limit its emissions under international treaty.

So what has happened? Our industrial civilization continues to emit increasing quantities of plant food, and the temperatures have been observed as follows (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/june2037.gif).

If there was ever a hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures under a “green house” scenario, it has well and truly been falsified.

Yet the caravan of hysterical activists and opportunists continues. We have a government here is Australia that wants to introduce a tax on plant food, something we all breath out 30 times a minute.

The temperatures are not increasing, the ice isn’t melting, the glaciers are not retreating, and the seas are not rising (except for what you would expect in line with our retreat from the last ice age). The real evidence for anthropocentric global warming was always ambiguous at best.

Carl Sagan popularized the green house scenario. He also popularized the “nuclear winter” scenario. Gulf War I falsified the latter hypothesis. The atmosphere behaves in ways that is not fully understood.

I believe that the damage that Hansen has done to the credibility of science and its influence on public policy will be irretrievable. In fact it will be catastrophic.

We have had 400 years of progress following the Enlightment, we are in the age of genuine miracles, not pretend ones, and we face the challenge of maintaining a rational approach in the face of increasing beliefs in fundamentalist religion, voodoo and pseudo science. Celebrity scientists who sprout outrageous speculation do not help this process.

[sjastro]

Any armchair expert can glean the Internet and produce data to support their own prejudices (and I am referring to both sides of the debate).

I put much more credibility on the opinions of climate scientists.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Regards

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small (http://users.westconnect.com.au/%7Esjastro/small)

[Argonavis]

Science isn't done by survey, although I appreciate what you are trying to convey. I prefer to make up my own mind based on the evidence.

Surveys themselves are subject to abuse. This survey is reporting on "do you believe" rather than "is there solid evidence for".

The survey reports "Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century." This is not surprising. These are human beings who are influenced by the popular culture, just like everyone else.

The earth's average global temperature is believed to have increased by 0.4 °C ± 0.6 °C over the last 100 years. The error bars are bigger than the movement! There is also numerous factors affecting the accuracy of these measurements. Most of these increases were prior to the 1950's. These numbers are subject to much debate.

The real issue is that the data is ambiguous, the science uncertain, and the future unknown.

[Peter Ward]

You know I almost put this sort of sillyness in the same brief as the 9/11 event was faked.

Good debate here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

and gives a pretty good rundown on the data complexities.

also Wiki gives a nice summary here

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

Wow....and we are to believe due to lone poster on ISS there is no data or consensus....

[Peter Ward]

Argo's stance also reminds me of this very off beat, but very funny animation....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkayHv1nuoM

Cheers
Peter

[strongmanmike]

:rofl: Tu she!

I don't believe smoking causes lung cancer either :doh: :screwy:

[Karls48]

“Believe, personally believe, based on current scientific evidence” – I used to believe in Santa long long time ago. It looks like that some of today’s scientists become politicians.
The scientist either know that CO2 is causing global warming or they believe it is. There is a huge difference between believing and knowing.

[sjastro]

If the survey question is in a "do you believe" format (as most survey questions are), the answer is obviously in the same format.

That point aside, "In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today." This is a much more definitive statement.



They wouldn't be scientists then. When is scientific modelling and the conclusions generated based on fads.

Incidentally. "Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work. Just three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors."

Let's assume all these scientists have been influenced, that still leaves a large percentage with unadulterated opinions.





This gets me back to my original post. The NASA GISS data posted by Bert shows a very different picture.



The issue for me has been whether global warming is a natural or human induced event. The Greenhouse effect predicts that the temperature of the lower stratosphere would decrease where as increased solar activity would have an opposite effect.

Measurements indicate that the temperature is decreasing hence I've made up my mind:).

Regards

Steven

[MarkN]

The Greenhouse effect predicts that the temperature of the lower stratosphere would decrease where as increased solar activity would have an opposite effect.

Oh, that's really good Steve. Whatever happens confirms your theory. Talk about two bob each way!

Something a few people should read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/climatechange

Mark.

[sjastro]

Mark,

I'm profoundly honoured that you should think it's my theory but it's basic atmospheric physics that's been known for a long time.

When solar activity is constant, the temperature of the lower stratosphere is determined primarily by heat radiated into space from the Earth's surface. If there is a greenhouse effect, this inhibits heat flow into the lower stratosphere resulting in decreasing temperatures.

If on the other hand solar activity is on the rise and there is no greenhouse effect, the temperature of the lower stratosphere will increase.

Sorry but no bets are being taken either way.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp

Regards

Steven