Climate change [Archive] - Page 2

renormalised

16-12-2009, 11:02 PM

How many people in the general public, Steven, have enough science knowledge to be able to follow the debate. Most people in the general public have very poor understanding of even the most basic science. You only have to look at the level of performance in schools w.r.t. what's being taught. I know teachers who are supposedly science teachers who can't teach the subject!!!

Yes, what you have said there was true, but at least Plimer knows how to do the research to at least form an opinion. Plus he's knowledgeable enough in science to be able to understand what he's looking at. He's been trained in the scientific method, Monboit hasn't. The problem with most scientist is that despite them knowing a lot about their subject matter, they aren't good communicators. If you can't argue climate science at a high level with your peers, than be able to bring to a level that can be understood by non specialists and the public, then you shouldn't be trying to communicate it. That should be left to those who can. If you can't argue the debate because you haven't the knowledge, and you present to a debate trying to make a convincing argument, you'll only misinform your audience and confuse them even further. That's what we don't want.

But what we also don't want is someone presenting to an argument not telling the audience the whole of the matter, just pushing a "political" line for the sake of reputation or other vested interests.

renormalised

16-12-2009, 11:14 PM

...and that's precisely what the problem is, worldwide. Big multinationals (oil, coal, energy generating etc) control the governments by controlling their election purses. Doesn't hurt to have your own people in power either (the Bush's are part of big oil, and more than half of the US Congress and Reps are in their (big oil/energy) debt). Also helps if the premier financial institutions are also in the game, which they are.

Might be a good time for a revolution:D

renormalised

16-12-2009, 11:25 PM

I haven't read his book, but it wouldn't surprise me if Plimer made some factual faux pa's. It's not the first time he has.

I agree with you...I wasn't questioning that there is a problem that needs immediate remedying, only that the climate models used are only as good as the maths and physics they employ and the quality of the data being used.

The Sun may not be the driving factor (so far as they know) behind the changes occurring but it's input is being affected by other factors, CO2 increase being one of them. What we have to find out and be completely certain about is what are those factors driving the change. Once we know, we can be more careful about how we interact with our planet.

In the meantime, we should try and do something to mitigate what is happening.

renormalised

16-12-2009, 11:32 PM

That is an example of where ignorance isn't bliss and a little knowledge is not only dangerous but also open to abuse. Nuclear energy does have its own problems but the scare campaign run by the environmental lobby during the 70's and 80's in this country (just as an aside, I'd like to know where they got most of their funding from) was nothing more than a campaign of using a little knowledge to tell a lot of furphies.

marki

16-12-2009, 11:59 PM

Carl, this simply is not true. Perhaps you know a few teachers who are inept but to tar and feather the whole profession is a little premature to say the least. All of the Science teachers I know at least have a Bsc in a specialist area. All the folks in my department have at least Hons level in their specialist area, 2 have Phd's and one has a masters degree. To quote tabloids printing figures about student achievement is also a little silly as they twist figures to suit their own purpose. What you might like to consider is the number of teachers who are forced to teach outside their specialist area's due to a lack of suitably qualified graduates taking up the challange of educating our youth. An extreme lack of geology specialists comes to mind.....

To get back to the topic at hand as a professional body science teachers have our own associations and journals. It is from the last journal I would like to quote some statements made on climate change by climate scientists (rather than most of the speculation that goes on around here ;)) . This should cause a rukus no doubt.

The artical is titled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"

" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"

"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"

"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."

" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"

"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"

" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"

" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"

I could go on :P:D. This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark

renormalised

17-12-2009, 01:03 AM

I didn't tar the whole profession, Mark. I was only commenting on those teachers that aren't up to scratch, that are still allowed to teach those subjects. I also know a lot of very good teachers as well. The problem is that the students aren't doing as well in science as they should do and many would rather not be doing science if they could get away with it. That seems to be more of a problem with the way society has perceived science and scientists over the years. It's part of the "geeky" "too hard basket". Some of the calls I have heard about making it an elective subject for juniors are crazy. Even seniors should have to do at least one science subject (no matter what "stream" they're in). Next minute, they'll be making English and Mathematics elective subjects!!!!.

That's what science teachers should have, at the very least...a full qualification in their area of teaching. I'd also like to see them have experience as well, but that can't always be the case.

Well, you would've had a geology specialist here, only for the fact family matters intervened, I'd have had my BEd as well as my science degree. Plus someone with experience in the industry to boot. But all that's another story.

marki

17-12-2009, 01:40 AM

Fair enough Carl. I haven't actually seen a raw graduate come through our science dept for a very long time. All of us have had hands on experience in or respective fields, some come and go depending on the need for cash as well. Shame about the geology, I don't know my arse from my elbow with that stuff and hate teaching it in any case :P . When kids come up with a sample and ask what it is my standard answer is "it's a rock son" :D.

Mark

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:03 AM

That Mark, is the actual case...all true.

At present, we're in a period of relatively mild climate compared to the majority of the last 2.5 million years. An interglacial...and the last interglacial, the CO2 levels were 5-10% higher than their present value and the sea level was 6 metres higher than at present. The was no Sahara Desert...it was a savannah grassland with scattered forests. Most interglacials last for around 10-15 thousand years. The cold periods can last up to 100 thousand years or longer (they average 60-85 thousand).

Those levels of CO2 you mentioned all happen to be the case. During the Palaeocene-Eocene Climatic Maximum, the CO2 levels were 3 times higher than now and the temp was 12-15 degrees Celcius, on average, higher than now. There were temperate rainforests in Antarctica. What brought it all to and end was the freezing of Antarctica and the subsequent changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Also the uplift of the Himalayas and proto Alps greatly affected the climate as well. It's only in the last few million years that CO2 level have been down around the present level, or near present level. For much of the last 500-550 million years, Earth has been a warmer planet with, at many stages, considerably higher CO2 levels than now.

That time when the CO2 levels were x10 now was during the "Great Freeze" around 780-680 million years ago. That was the last of the "mega ice ages". The entire planet froze over, pole to pole for around 10 million years. Sea ice was over 1km thick. It was only for the fact that CO2 levels gradually built up to insane levels (through volcanic activity and little to no CO2 being absorbed by ocean water) that the ice melted and we came out of it, into a period of very high surface temps...around the 60 degree celcius mark. That lasted for several hundred thousand years, until the oceans and algae eventually brought the CO2 under equilibrium.

The main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, followed by methane. CO2 is actually a minor gas.

If you want somewhere to see what has happened with our planet w.r.t. its climate, go here... Climate of the Carboniferous. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)

If you really want to teach the kids the truth...trawl the scientific literature, especially journals like Geology or Science, for example (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/249/4975/1382). You'll learn a lot more from them than listening to the misinformation you'll get from the media.

Also, talk to the less hysterical of those amongst the scientists involved in studying long term climate and Earth history. You'll get a much more balanced PoV.

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:13 AM

Next time you have to teach it, let me know in advance and I'll lend you a hand:D

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:15 AM

Nothing wrong with that answer. At least it's correct:D

glenc

17-12-2009, 05:09 AM

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

This graph does not show that: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure3.png
November 2009 had the third-lowest average extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records. The linear rate of decline for the month is now 4.5 percent per decade.
The ice is also getting thinner.

glenc

17-12-2009, 05:17 AM

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"
" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"
" When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

This graph does not show that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Barrykgerdes

17-12-2009, 07:19 AM

No matter what is said for and against climate change one thing is certain the world will be ruled by polititions who will do anything to keep their positions.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Earth’s climate has been continually changing since its assumed creation 4.5 billion years ago without any influence of man who is presumed to have only been around for the past 50000 years.

Earth’s position in the solar system oscillates about a position approximately 91 million miles from the Sun due to an eccentric orbit. The median range of climate is also affected by the Sun that also oscillates about a range of activity. These two factors govern the mean temperature of the Earth and will vary over quite a few degrees.

Without an atmosphere the temperatures would be extremely hot by day and extremely cold by night. However the atmosphere of Earth composed mainly of nitrogen and oxygen along with water vapour regulates the extremes to keep the temperature range at a level that supports life as well as filtering harmful radiation and space dust.

Life commenced on earth with the arrival of vegetation. This slowly removed the carbon from the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with the help of the Sun, water and a catalyst called chlorophyll, creating the carbohydrates of vegetation and liberating oxygen in the process. When the level of CO2 was reduced to a very low level animal life arrived. Animal life requires oxygen to burn the fuel that gives it energy, creating CO2. This is the Carbon Cycle that has been maintained for millions of years. The vegetation over time decayed into coal etc. and has been stored underground.

Over the millions of years Earth’s climate has moved through cycles of warm, dry, humid and freezing periods creating lush growth in areas that are now desert and probably creating lush growth in areas that were once desert. Earth’s movement and Sun activity circulating the atmosphere that keeps life going have brought about these changes.

In our modern society we have found that our climate is changing with vast areas becoming hotter and drier with others becoming wetter or colder. This has been blamed on human activity for no other reason than statistics. These statistics can be manipulated to produce any result that the manipulators require. There are very few scientific facts that support this theory.

Yes we are pouring large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere and sea and that must be addressed but CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a building block of life! We have also had massive land clearances in some areas of the Earth and the proliferation of high-rise buildings that significantly change the air currents that regulate our climate.

Calling CO2 a “Greenhouse” gas is without scientific fact and besides making up less than four ten-thousandths part of the atmosphere it would have no effect if it were. The biggest factor in the so-called “Greenhouse” effect is water vapour mainly in the form of clouds.

The increase in CO2 is be being blamed for the warming of the planet because statistically the level in the atmosphere has increased by 30% over the last 50 years whereas other factors have varied by quite insignificant percentages. The climate change lobby blames combustion of fossil fuels, mainly carboniferous, for the increase in CO2. They have failed to take note of the fact that the sea has great amounts of CO2 dissolved in it and if the temperature of the water were raised by 1 degree it would liberate sufficient CO2 to have caused the rise in CO2 percentage level.

We can’t change the climate but what we can do is learn to make the most of it. We can reduce pollution by turning the Sun’s energy directly into electricity or hydrogen fuel. We can make better use of our rivers to conserve water. We can use the oceans and wind to produce energy. We can improve our agriculture by using our land to grow sustainable crops where there are limited means and the most controversial subject of overpopulation must be addressed.

Barry

glenc

17-12-2009, 08:10 AM

Calling CO2 a “Greenhouse” gas is without scientific fact and besides making up less than four ten-thousandths part of the atmosphere it would have no effect if it were. The biggest factor in the so-called “Greenhouse” effect is water vapour mainly in the form of clouds.

There is a close relationship between CO2 and temperature according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png)

Solanum

17-12-2009, 09:13 AM

Wow, that is a serious pile of untruths, misconceptions and misdirection. I hope that isn't what school kids are being taught or they'll be in for a shock when they go to university to study any of the subjects those comments touch upon. Anyone who compares the climate today with that of several hundred million years ago in the context of climate change is trying to pull a fast one. It is basically irrelevent as both the geology and biology of our planet is very different now (not to mention our data on the climate then has very high error bars on it compared with more recent times). I think you are a lot better off looking at the climate over the last few hundred thousand years (5 ice ages or so) and then asking those questions of how we compare now. You would get some very different answers. Lets not forget that Homo sapiens sapiens has been here for less than 200,000 years.

sjastro

17-12-2009, 09:16 AM

Perhaps you would like to disclose the names of these "real practising climate scientists" and their scientific publications.

They seem to have no basic understanding of the cause and effect role of Co2 on climate change.

Steven

marki

17-12-2009, 09:47 AM

Steven I will post the list of references when I get home tonight. Don't worry, I was as suprised as anyone to read the artical. Would love some ammo to have a go at the editor.

Mark

Barrykgerdes

17-12-2009, 09:49 AM

That reference is exactly what I was refering to. It is a theory generated by statistics not science. Statistics can be used to prove or disprove depending on how you use them.

It is akin to the old conundrum "What came first The chiken or the egg"
eg did the rise in temperature cause the increase in CO2 or did CO2 increase the temperature.
because the amount of CO2 has always been insignificant against all other factors I go with the theory that CO2 increases because of temperature rises.

Barry

AstralTraveller

17-12-2009, 10:35 AM

I'm trying to stay out of this but I will correct the above two paragraphs.

Yes water vapour is the major greenhouse gas but suggesting that CO2 has no effect just because it is in low concentration is wrong. First, it is easy to see that CO2 should trap heat by blocking outgoing IR. Since the CO2 absorption band does not fully overlap with the H2O absorption band the absorption due to CO2 is added to that of H2O. In an ideal gas these 'bands' are discrete lines but in a real gas the lines are broadened into bands. The CO2 band is, despite the low concentration, already fully blocked at its centre and the increase in absorbance is due to band broadening as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. That is why the increase in CO2 absorbance does not scale directly with the increase in CO2 cancentration. Trying to write off CO2 because of its low concentration is a bit like trying to claim that once light has travelled all those billions of km from that galaxy a mere piece of paper can't stop it reaching your telescope.

I'm surprised anyone would attempt to deny that human activity is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Records of CO2 conc go back much further than 30 years and the temporal correlation between the increase in atm CO2 and the increase in fossil fuel use is plain to see. But there is more! Consider the carbon 13: carbon 12 ratio of atmospheric CO2. These ratios are normally expressed as a 'delta value' which reports the difference in the ratio (in permille, ie. parts per thousand) of the sample from that of an internationally accepted reference material. So for carbon we talk about the d13C on the PDB scale (the 'd' should be a Greek delta but I don't have that font available). Prior to the industrial revolution the d13C of atm CO2 was about -6 permille. The carbon in fossil fuels has a value of about -27 and that of CO2 outgassed from oceans is about 0. So if the extra CO2 comes from the ocean the value will move towards 0 and if it comes from fossil fuel it will move towards -27. What do we see? The value has moved from about -6 to about -7. (The situation is a little more complicated than this but I'll stop now - I have to calibrate some d13C results so I can tell a grad student whether or not she is happy.)

glenc

17-12-2009, 10:50 AM

This thread is a good example of the psychology of climate denial.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/cold-comfort-the-psychology-of-climate-denial-20091202-k5r8.html?autostart=1
"Experts see several explanations for the eagerness with which so many dismiss climate change as overblown or a hoax.
"There is the individual reluctance to give up our comfortable lifestyles - to travel less, consume less," said Anthony Grayling, a philosophy professor at the University of London and a bestselling author in Britain."

Paul Haese

17-12-2009, 10:50 AM

Here is an interesting concept.

It is politcally expedient to have a climate related debate so that voters can make a stand. Remember the Franklin River issue.

The truth should never get in the way of the debate. We have not been keeping records long enough to understand how climate change is brought about. It is our own arrogance that assumes we know what is going on right now.

Water vapour is the real green house gas by quite a large margin. CO2 is very small in the scheme of things.

Using wikipedia is not a reliable reference source in arguments like this. It will never be accepted academically because of its sourcing.

Only the infantile truly think we are going to change the climate. One volcano a year will pump out more CO2 and sulphur dioxide than we are ever going to do with burning fossil fuels. Added to this is that solar minimums of recent times have been more active than early last century. A higher output on minimums (not maximum) has a far breater influence on weather than anything else.

Like many others I was initially convinced of our influence in the whole climate until I started doing some serious reading. The climate of this planet is in continual change, WE DID NOT CAUSE IT! Once you start paying the higher taxes you will regret thinking this is all too real.

Plenty of people being deluded just so that someone can get re-elected down the track. Oh well their choice. This old addage comes to mind. Believe half of what you see and non of what you hear.

glenc

17-12-2009, 10:59 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

PeterM

17-12-2009, 11:04 AM

Bravo and Ditto to every paragraph!

PeterM.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 11:07 AM

Of course the climate is in continual change and always has been, how does that mean it can't be changed in a diferent way from what would have occurred without human intervention?

CO2 efflux from human activities is far far more than the average annual emission from volcanic sources, so your comment there is simply wrong.

Solar energy levels have been measured for a long time and simply don't provide enough energy to account for the apparent warming that we see.

The climate and atmosphere on the earth is due to life on this planet. No one would deny that, without photosynthesis there would be no significant oxygen and far far higher levels of CO2. We couldn't live in that atmosphere. To deny that it is possible for man to alter climate is simply bizarre, have a look at some satellite photos and compare the regions of the earth where man has changed the ecology with those that we have not (you can include the sea if you like as we have massively altered marine wildlife across the whole world). Simply the presence of urban areas alters the climate, that is why temperature measurements near cities have to be adjusted down.

I am still amazed that so many people interested in astronomy should be hoodwinked by poorly constructed arguments into believing that there is some conspiracy around the world that just wants to disrupt our lives for some unknown reason. to say that we haven't had a thermometer present 500 years ago means we can't deduce temperatures from other means is like saying that you don't believe the temperatures astronomers give for stars, we don't have a thermometer in them so how could we possibly know?

Barrykgerdes

17-12-2009, 11:20 AM

Hi AstralTraveller
You are a believer in climate change by human activity and you are fully entitled to do so right or wrong. But your arguments are based on partial truths and statistcs. CO2 does block IR both ways so its effect will tend to cancel but only if it is significant in the constitution of the atmosphere.

Don't forget the amount of carbon and other elements that constitute our earth hasn't changed since the earth's creation and the cycle of combining O2 with C and the converse (carbon cycle) has been going for a long time. If the CO2 gets too high animal life will die out and vegetation will prevail thus reversing the cycle as it has done before.

I know we as humans are abusing our ecosystem to our own demise but CO2 is not the problem.

Barry

renormalised

17-12-2009, 11:32 AM

Glen, that graph is meaningless. It's only for the last 800Ka. A blip in time. For most of Earth's history, the CO2 levels have been appreciably higher (much higher in most cases) than what they've been for the last 2.5 million years. How do you account for a CO2 level of 600-800ppm for most of the Tertiary/Quaternary Periods, and a high of 1200-1250ppm for the Palaeocene/Eocene epochs. Or an average of 1800ppm for the entire Mesozoic. Or an average of 2500-3000ppm for the Palaeozoic, apart from the mid to late Carboniferous, where temps were nearly as low now and so were the CO2 levels. During the Cambrian they were around 7000-8000ppm. The Earth at present is the coldest it's been for 500Ma, even during the Carboniferous period the average global temp was about a degree warmer than now.

Those Vostock ice core measurements are being taken during an ice age. The temps and the CO2 levels are going to go up and down like a yoyo!!!.

What is ultimately in dispute here is human input into the causes for climate change. Whether you believe it or not will depend on your own PoV and how much you actually know about the subject.

renormalised

17-12-2009, 11:53 AM

I'm afraid it's you who is misinformed. If they go to uni to study those subjects, that's exactly what they will be taught. The geology of this planet has been the same as it is now, in so far as the processes we have presently are involved, for the past 1800-2500Ma. The biology, in so far as the overall biological process that occur are involved, have been pretty much the same for the past 350Ma (on land) and for 550Ma (in the oceans). The past climates have a very relevant bearing on what is happening now because we can study how the processes that occurred then mirror (or are different to) what they do today. It might come as a surprise to you that there were ice ages way back then. There were tropical zones, temperate zones, deserts, rainforests etc etc, just the same as now. The players on the stage may have been different but the stage was the same.

Now...I'm going to throw this whole debate open and put it on the line...

How many of you actually have studied as part of, or have a degree in Climatology, Geology, Atmospheric Physics/Meteorology/Chemistry etc??

It's all well and good being able to posts graphs and such supporting a position, but do you actually understand the science behind what you've posted, the context in which the graphs were produced, or are you just paraphrasing what's being said in those studies and what's being promulgated by the media??

Do you know why the results are the way they are??

AstralTraveller

17-12-2009, 11:56 AM

Barry,

My position on AGW is not as cut and dried as you believe, see my previous posts. Also the thing I value most is an honest argument - something there is just too little of.

If I used partial truths it was not to decieve, just that I'm not about to write an essay. If you think I have misrepresentated the situation with respect to the IR trapping properities of CO2 or the cause of the increase in atm CO2 conc (the topics of my last post) please state specifically where my fault lies. BTW I didn't use statistics.

Your last sentence implies you didn't understand my post - there is 100% absorbance at the centre of the CO2 band even though there is only 380ppm of CO2. It also reveals that you don't know how the natural greenhouse effect works. By your mechanism there could be no natural greenhouse effect. Please look up how the natural greenhouse works, I don't have time to write it up.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 11:57 AM

That doesn't make any sense. The effect doesn't cancel because CO2 doesn't block IR it absorbs the energy. The whole point is that it prevents IR radiation leaving the earth, thus increasing the energy within the atmosphere. The IR that comes from the sun is absorbed anyway so is irrelevant (kind of).

Also the atmosphere hasn't really cycled between O2 and CO2. The CO2 has been absorbed over time and O2 released. Until the O2 hit a certain level complex animal life could not exist. Whilst there is continual changes in the exact proportions, the O2 has remained fairly stable and will only be greatly affected if we removed enough plant life.

Undeniable fact: CO2 is currently increasing in the atmosphere.
Undeniable fact: the majority of the CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic emissions*.
Undeniable fact: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.

The argument is whether or not warming of the earth's atmosphere is happening and whether or not CO2 is a significant driver of that.

* Note I say increase, not the majority of absolute annual terrestrial emissions.

sjastro

17-12-2009, 12:05 PM

Carl,

Do we know the following.

Let's reference it to the Carboniferous period.

(1) Was there a supercontinent during this period?
(2) What was the "mean" angle of Earth's rotational axis to the orbital plane during this period?
(3) If this supercontinent existed where was it's position relative to the surface of the Earth?

Regards

Steven

renormalised

17-12-2009, 12:06 PM

Finally, someone who understands atmospheric chemistry!!!. However, there are other factors just as important as the rising CO2 concentrations which are contributing to global temp rise, which I've mentioned earlier on in this thread. The cause isn't entirely CO2 (even though it is a strong factor) and it's about time that is made clear.

What I would be more worried about is if the methane clathrate deposits in the oceans decide to sublimate. These are very sensitive to temperature fluctuations. If they all decide to go, we're in a lot of trouble. Think rising CO2 levels are bad, if the clathrate deposits sublimate, the rise in temp over time will make CO2 look like a comfortable spring picnic. Only good thing about methane is it doesn't last long in the atmosphere...5-10 years...before it's scrubbed out by biological and hydro-geological processes.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 12:14 PM

I studied geology at university (though in a limited way and it was a fair time ago), I studied chemistry at university (again limited) and I am a plant biologist by profession. One thing I can tell you is that the vegetation has most certainly changed significantly in the time you claim it hasn't. One of the largest impacts has been the evolution of grasses, which is much more recent and has totally changed the vegetation in large parts of the world.

Of course the paleoclimate informs us in how the climate works, who would deny that. But it is disingenuous to talk about 500 million years ago and how we are colder now. The point is that for the last several hundred thousand years the climate has been relatively stable (glacial/interglacial cycles), and all the measurements we have indicate that we are now going off that stable range. Why?

The best guess we have is that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. So do you consider that we are currently warming or not? If you consider that we are, then what do you think the cause is?

Solanum

17-12-2009, 12:19 PM

Then Carl I don't understand your position. I am familiar with what Astral Traveler posted as well (I've worked with people studying stable isotopes in the atmosphere - and I can assure all the ones I have come across are fairly convinced that climate change is occurring and that humans are the major players). No one is seriously claiming that CO2 is the only component, and you yourself point out some of the big problems that could happen if the earth warms.

Paul Haese

17-12-2009, 12:32 PM

1. yes CO2 is increasing but is still at levels around 0.03% of the atmosphere. The way everyone is going on one would think that it was something like 10% and rising rapidly. There is a huge level of hysteria involved in the notion of CO2 rising.

2. this statement is well; not entirely correct. Deforestation, release of CO2 from the oceans due to acidification (which could be Sol's doing via high solar minimum outputs) are equally attributable to CO2 increases. This blanket statement really is that.

3. yes CO2 is a green house gas, but not the major constituent amount and certainly a lot more insignificant than the "climate change debater" make it out to be.

What is being said for the drop in temperatures in the last 3 years? The most recent studies are showing that temperatures have levelled off and are now reducing. Mean while CO2 keeps rising. This is incongrous with the premise of the climate change debaters. What do the climatologists have to say about that? Shall we just ignore that fact?

This system which we live is so complex that I doubt that humans have the slightest grasp as to what is really going on.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 12:41 PM

1. The absolute amount is not the issue, the issue is the effect. If the atmosphere was 0.03% cyanide the world would be a very different place.

2. Deforestation is part of anthropogenic emissions and a big part of the problem, I don't understand your point.

3. This is the same point as 1. Saying it is only 0.03% tells us nothing about the impact. How would you like 0.03% of alpha-radiation emitters in your diet? The big question is over what that impact is. The consensus in climate scientists is that the impact is significant. I'm not a climate scientist, though I have attended lectures by those that are, so I will go for the consensus. As nicely stated earlier, if 97% of doctors recommend one treatment and 3% another, who would you go with?

renormalised

17-12-2009, 12:43 PM

Yes we do know about the state of the planet at the time. Without hunting for the particular references (as I don't have them on me and it'll take time to get them), I can tell you that the continents were assembling into Pangaea...Laurasia (that's Nth America and much of Eurasia) was moving towards the equator, whilst Gondwanaland was situated mostly over the Sth Pole and was covered in a large ice sheet.

I've got some maps (see below) for you to give you an idea of what the situation was in so far as the positions of the continents are concerned, as well as a climatological map. The situation is very similar as it is today, climatologically. You may have to download the graph and climatological map...they don't look so great when you click on them to display!!! (just tested them).

The Earth's average axial tilt in the Carboniferous was pretty much the same as it is now. They've been able to deduce this from the varve deposits from lake sediments of the period. What a varve is...is the annual deposits of fine clay and other particle sediments that build up as layers in the bottom of lakes in cold climates. The size of each layer, the types of minerals and such present and their internal physical characteristics can be used to determine many things...lengths of the year and hence orbital motion, length of the day at the time of deposition, how long the seasons lasted etc. From these, they've been able to determine the length of the day (from memory about 23 hours) and an orbit about the same as now.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 12:47 PM

And one more before, I get on with some work. As you well know the land masses were in a very different position to now during those hot periods you talk about, which resulted in big differences in ocean currents and big differences in climate. That's what I meant about the geology (though I would be surprised if outgassing has remained the same over the last 500 million years - but I have no idea). As I already said, the biology has change a lot since land plants first appeared on earth.

So the bottom line is, how can data on climate 500 million years ago be more relevant than the last one million years?

PeterM

17-12-2009, 01:03 PM

The "97% of doctors" is a poor analogy in this debate. You might as well throw in that 97% plus of financial analysts failed to predict the GFC, yet you still trust them to manage your smaller super fund even today and now 97% of them can't agree on whether the world is recovering or not.

I'd say more than 97% of doctors were at odds and challenged Warren and Marshall yet their "tenacity and prepared mind challenged the prevailing dogma". They were awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine 2005 with their "remarkable and unexpected discovery" re peptic ulcer disease. Until then people were told it was lifestyle and stress related.
Someone once said Science progresses one funeral at a time.

PeterM.

Peter Ward

17-12-2009, 01:14 PM

No worries Pete...if you got cancer, I'd take it that you'd ignore all the specialists & MRI scans and go with the guy who says "eat mung beans and maybe take a couple of asprin" :shrug:

renormalised

17-12-2009, 01:45 PM

I didn't say that the vegetation hasn't changed. I said that even though the "players" have changed, the "stage" and the processes involved are much the same as they are now. There are differences (most notably atmospheric oxygen content), but the physics of the processes driving the climate is the same.

The climate for the past 2.5Ma hasn't been stable at all and claiming it has been is not correct. If it was stable, there'd either be continuous ice or none at all. The climate has fluctuated wildly over the last 2.5Ma, with much of the time being colder than at present (or what is "normal" for interglacials). Even during the interglacials, the climates have gone up and down like a yoyo...the present interglacial being a very good example (even more so than the last two examples).

I never denied that the earth is warming...all I am saying is that there are other factors, just as important as a rise in CO2 which have contributed to the warming and most are man made. Instead of blaming it all on the CO2 why don't they look at some of these other factors...like the increasing spread of plant monocultures in agriculture over the last 100-200 years, the great increase in the size and spread of urban areas and the materials they're constructed out of, the cutting down of the forests, the huge increase in the numbers of cows on the planet (there's 1.5 billion of them...1/5th of them in India alone...remember methane) etc. You're a plant biologist...what happens when you replace a complex ecosystem (like the grasslands) with a monoculture of, say, wheat, over vast areas of your landmass. What you get, apart from all the usual problems in diversity, nutrient fluctuations etc etc, is a raising of the average temperature in the atmosphere surrounding the wheat. The IR flux off the wheat is higher than off the original ecosystem. Take temp measurements before and after the wheat is planted and you'll see the difference. You also get bare soils at some stage...bare soils get hot and re-radiate the heat, the also have higher CO2 output than a normal grassland or forest because of the exposed bacteria load in the soil. So there's a double whammy. Cut down the forest (forest cover on the planet has dramatically decreased over the last 100-150 years) and the same thing happens...temps rise. Not only that but you also get changes in climate patterns which spread worldwide. It's happening with the Amazon and the SE Asian forests and climate right now.

Look at where most of the temp measurements have been taken in the last 150 or so years...in and around towns and cities. As you'd be aware of, towns and cities are usual quite a bit hotter than their surroundings and have their own peculiar microclimates, which also effect the surroundings. Increase the size and extent of those towns and cities over time. Change the materials out of which they're constructed, and what happens?? The urban heat islands grow larger and hotter and affect their surroundings even more so. What does that do to the measurements you take??

You cannot divorce local or regional changes in climate from the overall global system. They're intimately interconnected. For example, the temperatures in much of China have gone up ever since they deforested and de-grassed much of the country, especially the northern half. Now they're having greater problems with desertification and rising temps than they've ever had beforehand. The same is happening in the Amazon. if they keep cutting it down at the rate they are, in 50 or so years you're going to have desertification and rising temps there. Not only that, it's one of the two major heat engines of the planet...and it's lungs as well. What happens when it disappears is going to make the rising CO2 levels look quaint.

Hopefully you can see what I'm trying to get at...the problem is far more than just CO2. By rights, if it was just CO2 rise, then during the Ordivician Period, there shouldn't have been a major ice age. The CO2 levels were around 4200ppm. even though Gondwana was over the Sth Pole, it shouldn't have had ice...but it did, lots of it. The average global temps at the time were only 2 degrees higher than now. So what was keeping the planet that cool, given the high CO2??. It wasn't a different orbit or whatever...they were pretty much the same as now. The Sun was only 3-4% dimmer than now...we get greater differences now, between summer and winter solar insolation than that. You have to look at the rates of erosion and the chemical/hydrological processes involved, the physical positioning of the continents and how they affect global sea and air circulation patterns and host of other things. You also have to remember there were bugger all land plants at the time...maybe some "pond scum" if you were lucky. That would greatly affect the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere.

See what I mean...CO2 can be important over large times scales, but there's more to short and medium term climate change than just an increase in CO2. Other factors come into play...and at present much of the other things we're doing is only making things worse.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 02:15 PM

Phew, a big post! Well on the whole I don't disagree. I have a few points:

1) By stable, I mean that for the last 600,000+ years or so we have seen cycles, where the max and min temperatures are similar (compared with the range over the 2.5 billion years before that). All the evidence I have seen points to us now tracking out of those cycles, thus we have the problem.

2) The ecosystem arable stuff is quite a bit more complex than you point out and those same changes occurred when the world went from being primarily covered in forest to having large areas of grassland (also the grassland can't hold as much C, so if it had always been there we wouldn't have all the coal we are burning), changing agriculture techniques (no till etc.) means that bare soil is increasingly less common. But I don't disagree with your point.

3) Temperature measurements are made at various levels in the atmosphere (and with various results), plus urban heat islands etc. are adjusted for in the models and the data interpretation, so I don't think that those factors negate the predictions for future climate.

4) I'll freely admit I know little if anything about the major controls on global temperature over the billion year timescales you are talking about (though I am fascinated). You appear to be suggesting that those controls are not well understood? Considering the differences that you have pointed out between then and now, and the relative recent stability (see my definition above!!!!), I would still say that making comparisons with the last million years or so was a much better option than looking at pre-cambrian times....

5) I agree totally with your paragraph on deforestation, I also agree absolutely that CO2 is not the only player in climate change. I don't think anyone would disagree, certainly not the modellers, who do include a whole raft of things.

So in summary, the difference between you and me is that you consider CO2 increases to be a smaller impact than most models predict and that possibly the degree of warming is overestimated due to biased data?

My opinion is basically that all areas of biology are already seeing the effects of climate change (whatever the cause). Not being a climate scientist (but also not being totally ill informed) I have seen no convincing arguments that the basic assumptions of the "97%" ;) are incorrect and I don't have the background to judge whether any of the "3" have some wacked out idea that might just be correct. I'll exclude from that 3% all the jokers who are peddling disinformation for some end I don't understand.

rat156

17-12-2009, 02:15 PM

I'd agree that it's a poor analogy Peter.

In general we understand the cause and pathogenesis of cancer, at least on a biological level. There are biomarkers for cancer that can be detected at very low levels. A doctor relies on the pathology tests before making a definitive diagnosis.

Climatology is really in its infancy by comparison, in general we don't know the causes of temperature change, though we think we have identified some of the factors. The mechanism by which these factors effect our planet are the subject of much discussion.

My own personal philosophy is that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action. If, in the end the CO2 problem isn't a problem we may have reforested a good deal of land, reduced our dependency on oil and other fossil fuels (have to declare a vested interest in this as it frees more up for me to use motor racing), reduced the world's political dependency on the Middle-East and cleaned up some of the particulates in the air. All this is going to cost money, but all are benefits, to quote an old conservative politician, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". I welcome paying more tax to clean up the mess, so my children don't have to. Kinda like I welcomed paying more Medicare levy until the Government forced me to take out private health insurance (yet another rant of mine), as long as they put the money into public hospitals (which I don't think they did).

Cheers
Stuart

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:17 PM

Yes, they were, but you have to look at the positions in which they were in the overall context of the climates that occurred when they did. Climates have changed and fluctuated over millions of years but much of the overall basic patterns have remained the same. During the Carboniferous, for example, the climate overall was much the same as now. The climate zones and weather patterns were quite similar, but the CO2 level was 800ppm. That should mean, according to the those that believe it's the CO2 causing the climate change, it should've been much hotter, but it wasn't. What does that tell you??.

Let's look at a time less remote from us than this...the Cretaceous. CO2 concentration was 1700ppm, average global temp was 18 degrees, 6 higher than now. The continents were pretty much recognisable though somewhat out of position, but their distribution relative to one another was similar to today. CO2 levels fell to around 1000ppm by the end of the period and it cooled to around an av' of 16 degrees worldwide. The plant biology of the time was remarkably similar to now. You had conifer forests and flowering plants had actually supplanted most non flowering plants in variety and numbers of species by the mid to late Cretaceous. Apart from the fact you had large munchy biteys running around, the world was remarkably like now, except there was 50% more oxygen around than now. The temperature profile for the Cretaceous is remarkably constant for the much of the period, CO2 levels were not. They dropped 700ppm. What is that telling you about the correlation between CO2 and temperature??. Actually, when the CO2 levels were at their highest during the period, the temps were at their lowest...doesn't quite ring true, does it?? This is despite the fact that warm seas covered much of the continents at the time and carbonate deposition was high.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 02:28 PM

Ah, but we're not talking about correlations really are we? The models are much more sophisticated than that and based on the physics involved. I would have thought that an equation of: proportion of radiation not intercepted by other gases x fraction of radiation potentially absorbed by CO2 x CO2 concentration would give bounds on the CO2 effect both then and now (I realise that is a silly simplification, but you get my drift). I find it very hard to believe that those sort of calculations have not been done for the carboniferous and for the current climate. No doubt there are many factors that can be tweaked to give differing results, but it should give a range and it should allow sensitivity analysis to be done, giving probabilities. So I'm genuinely interested to know the likely explanations for the differences you point out.

The bottom line is though, that we're now talking about correlations rather than known physics and that is a risky basis in my opinion....

It's all about risk, and as I see it cutting CO2 emissions is the one thing most likely to help....

sjastro

17-12-2009, 02:42 PM

Thanks Carl.

Much appreciated.

Steven

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:47 PM

It hasn't been stable, in any terms. Actually, the global average temperautures for most of the last 550ma have been far more stable, for vastly longer periods of time than now. During the Cretaceous, the global average temperature remained at around 18 degrees (6 above now) for almost 100 million years!!!. 6-10 degree up and down fluctuations over a 600Ka period don't even count.

Yes it is far more complex than what I wrote about there, I'd have had a much larger post if I went into the nitty gritty about it!!!!

They are now, and in the last 50 or so years, but what about the preceding 100 or so years...and they've only had the use of radiosondes for atmospheric measurements since the mid to late 40's. Satellites for even less time. The data isn't as good or as complete as it should be.

I'm not looking at the Pre-Cambrian for the most part. Only that geological processes have been relatively similar to now for the past 2500Ma. The climate has certainly changed, as has the atmosphere. Go far enough back and you've got an atmosphere that's mainly nitrogen, water vapour, some methane and ammonia, and over 100 atmospheres of CO2 content. Not my idea of a happy atmospheric mix!!!. What's more, it's a secondary atmosphere and not the one the planet originally outgassed.

The only way to know what the modellers have used in their models is to look at the algorithms used and the assumptions they've used in making the models. Some may have included deforestation, others may not. What interests me is though there are other factors which are contributing to climate change in just as important ways as CO2, why is there an almost religious belief in the cause being "only" CO2 emissions. That's how it appears to being played out.

Yes, nearly correct there...what I'm trying to get at is that the impact of the riding CO2 levels isn't the be all and end all of what's changing the climate. There are other factors just as important which are contributing but you hear very little about them. All you get is the CO2 bogey man and very little else. There's a lot more to the results being published than pure academic study and reporting and I think those leaked emails recently, have established that and don't believe for one minute it's only confined to those scientists involved. They have done the whole debate a complete disservice and science no favours either. If I was the chancellor of the university/ies they were at, I would have dragged them before an university council and made them explain themselves. If they didn't have a damn good answer to back themselves up (which they wouldn't), they'd have been charged with gross misconduct and had their tenures revoked. I'd have sacked them immediately and advised the governments not to take their studies on their word, or anyone else associated with their studies...that includes the IPCC, which they were a part of.

renormalised

17-12-2009, 02:53 PM

The climate models for those various periods are based on the physics of the climate, with variations taken into account for the obvious differences between each period of time. That's how they're able to make those correlations I have been talking about.

Oh, I'm with you. It's a risky thing to be pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere like we are. No matter which way it turns out, it's much better to err on the side of caution and look to decrease what we are pumping into the atmosphere. No matter what the overall factors are, adding to your already growing problem is not the smart way of going about doing things.

Solanum

17-12-2009, 03:07 PM

Ah but they do, obviously you are right about the long term stability and my use of the word is a poor choice, lets say "predictable" instead (though that has connotations I wouldn't use...), but if you have a steady up/down cycle (and on a gross scale it has been fairly steady for the last 4 ice ages at least) and then suddenly depart from it I would be worried. The fact that it varied in a different way much further back in time wouldn't make me feel any better about it.

Well, the data is as good as it can be and we can only work with what we can get. We can't get satellite or balloon measurements for the last million years, so we have to work with what we have and in my opinion the human inginuity used in estimating temperatures from many different fields in many different ways is remarkable. Especially as most (but by no means all) agree to quite a degree.

Well, that is perhaps true of the media, I don't think it is true of the science. When i was working for the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting other gases were being looked at and the IPCC report has plenty on other gases too. The increasing concern about methane is an obvious part of that. Land use change is certainly a major factor in greenhouse accounting and a big sticking point right now in Copenhagen.

A lot of the algorithms used do get published in peer reviewed papers (dunno what proportion), it's just that by publication they tend to be somewhat behind the cutting edge.

I think the email leak is overplayed. It certainly isn't good and it has certainly done science a disfavour. But to some extent it just reflects reality. We scientists are people, personal politics, have dissagrements and have to fight over funding etc. We aren't a perfect science machine. I don't think there is anything there that casts doubt on the publicly released results.

renormalised

17-12-2009, 03:23 PM

I'll have to reply to you later...gotta go out for awhile:D

glenc

17-12-2009, 03:56 PM

For most of Earth's history, the CO2 levels have been appreciably higher (much higher in most cases) than what they've been for the last 2.5 million years. How do you account for a CO2 level of 600-800ppm for most of the Tertiary/Quaternary Periods, and a high of 1200-1250ppm for the Palaeocene/Eocene epochs.

Carl, what will happen if CO2 levels go back up to 600ppm plus?
Peter, is the official climate science as unreliable as financial forecasts?

AstralTraveller

17-12-2009, 04:01 PM

I haven't followed the email saga much at all but I think everyone has observed the timing and whos interests' it serves.

However I was taking to one of our academics who knows a researcher at East Anglica - though I'm not sure whether it was his emails that were leaked. Apparently the media picked up on the use of the word 'trick' to suggest that the scientists were pulling a swifty. It came up in the context of trying to put together a climate history over the past few millenia. There are multiple climate proxy records to consider and each one operates in a different way and has different spatial and temporal coverage and resolution. Then there is the instrumental record which also varies in quality and coverage. The comment was then something like .. "the trick is how to combine them..". So that bit, at least, is a storm in a tea-cup.

Peter Ward

17-12-2009, 05:07 PM

So be it.

Infancy? After of decades of research nothing other than anthropogenic causes (ie the whole raft, plus 200 years of pumping CO2) has heen attributed to climate change.

I don't see any of the naysayers getting on a plane to Stockholm with any plausible natural mechanism to collect their Nobel's.

Lovelock (and many others) have shown that a species can and does have significant effect on its environment. The planet's atmosphere changed big time with the arrival of photosynthesis!

To suggest humans have not had an impact on our planet is lunacy IMHO. The science debate has moved on and most peer reviewed journals are simply agruing now about the degree of change.

PeterM

17-12-2009, 05:31 PM

I think it will prove to be if we keep getting fed the "the end is nigh" human created CO2 GW alarmism. Many are now questioning the science behind this and rightly so. I still want someone to explain Henry's law to me in laymans terms and how it fits into all of this, seems this maybe a thorny one.

Future King Charlie said yesterday in Copenhagen that we have 7 years to get it right before we lose the controls forever - what at midnight on December 31 2016 that's it? Now where did he pull that one from, sounding more and more like a Y2K to me.

It is often suggested that oil companies and geologists associated with them are conspiring to fan the anti GW campaign for vested interests. Then of course the geologists cop a bagging (actually ridicule and personal attacks - very un scientific) as not being climate scientists - oh really, I suspect they have a better handle on what is happening based on billions of years of Earth's history.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees - a potentially huge tax burden on everyone in the form of an ETS that will pour billions from this country into a world fund to help "less fortunate nations" who have been happy to spend most of their income on arms, fighting with one another let alone feed themselves. Blimey if I were the president of kalamazoo I would saying anything at Copenhagen to get this through and reap the dollars.

Then of course we have people saying I am concerned for my grandkids - what? by imposing a huge make you feel good tax on them. Geez do the people questioning this quickly put together theory love their grandkids anyless, I think not. And all this based on a scientific theory that has grown its own legs, thank goodness there is now a growing chorus of doubters and questions being asked.

Anyways many islands were supposed to be under water by now -it is over 10 years since the first "frightening" reports were issued and I distinctly remember reading "within 10 yrs", maybe they refined the computer models and got another 10 or 20.

My comment was never meant to be an analogy, just used to point out how really bad an analogy of "97% of doctors" was. But then are financial forecasts really any different to the current dabate, maybe not - many financial experts who went to Uni to study economics, who use computer models to work out where to invest your money, they still have a job at the end of the day and get paid very well with your money whether they lose your money or not.

PeterM.

glenc

17-12-2009, 05:47 PM

I am opposed to an ETS too, I think there are better ways to do it.
I think we need to reduce the risk of climate change first before we think about compensation.
Australia needs to replace coal powered electricity with gas, solar, wind, wave, nuclear etc.

Peter Ward

17-12-2009, 05:59 PM

:doh:

This is misinformation.

They already are underwater.

The people of Tuvalu are being evacuated. Why do you say otherwise?

PeterM

17-12-2009, 07:16 PM

Misinformation is right Pete.

Below pretty much says a lot in a small space about what may have contributed to their problems.
http://www.skepticism.net/?p=62

Perhaps, as I noted in the kingdom of Kalamazoo - there maybe some opportunities for some good funding here, handouts, relocations to OZ and New Zealand and heck if the US helped create the problem during world war 2 by digging up the island for an airstrip and affecting the water table then I say allow them entry to the USA with heaps of money in their pockets. .

We are good at helping out small coutries and after all CO2 is mostly our fault right? Yet our hospitals are in crisis, kids are dying on our roads at an alarming rate, we have real problems alright.

75 per year being relocated to NZ, better employment and health etc etc, not bad. I would be first in line to leave.

And then from their own June 2008 report (below).
"The population tends to increase in the 4th quarter and decreases in the first quarter as students return to study"

Then you have returning labourers to Nauru.

So there are a lot of coming and goings in this small 1 meter above sea level island.

Yup misinformation.

http://www.spc.int/prism/country/tv/stats/

PeterM.

Peter Ward

17-12-2009, 07:27 PM

Guess this is wrong as well....

http://trendsupdates.com/kiribati-rising-sea-level-submerging-island-nation/

Many passengers on the Titanic also refused to believe the (unsinkable) ship was sinking.....it's well documented in the subsequent inquest.

BTW the article to which you refer acknowledges a (a dismissive "grand total") 7mm rise in sea level since 1993...which equates to around a 5 sq km loss of coastline for nations
like Tuvalu....as a recent ABC documentary showed....the poor buggers are underwater. Or are you suggesting they just imagining it?

PeterM

17-12-2009, 08:13 PM

Coral Atolls - was it Darwin who suggested and was eventually proven correct that atolls are built on sinking volcanoes. Does that not then mean these atolls are actually sinking and not being swamped by the sea? That would explain the 7mm rise of water or actually the 7mm fall of land wouldn't it?
Depends on when the doco was made - there have been and continue to be tsunamis that no doubt have had some impact. I guess removing the cocunut trees doesn't help keep the land in place either, but lets blame it on CO2 man made global warming gets more votes that way. Pulls on the emotions a bit I guess. And what of digging up much of the island for an airstrip during WW2.

PeterM

Peter Ward

17-12-2009, 08:19 PM

No. The latest data on this indicates you are plain wrong.

Either that, or this report...indicating sea levels are indeed rising....from a buch of hacks including NASA...must be a bunch of old cobblers...

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/press.html

PeterM

17-12-2009, 08:27 PM

Nuff said, at least we kept it civil, thank you. I am going out supernova hunting. I will respect your views and your defence of them. I don't agree but I do respect them.
PeterM.

renormalised

17-12-2009, 08:37 PM

The higher levels during those epochs were due to several factors. One being as the Earth warmed up after the slight dip at the end of the Cretaceous, the oceans became less efficient at absorbing the CO2 that was building up. The ideal sea temp for the maximum absorption of CO2 is around 16 degrees. As the temp goes up it becomes less efficient at absorbing the CO2, but what the worrying things is this...if the CO2 levels go up appreciably, that make the oceans more acidic, through the formation of carbonic acid. This is disastrous for calciferous microorganisms such as forams, which absorb CO2 and calcium to make their carbonate shells. These little critters take a lot of the CO2 out of the air when they help the water to absorb it. If they can't make their shells, they die...you can see where this leads. Not only less CO2 absorption, but it stuffs the food chain as well.

The second factor which had affected the CO2 levels was volcanic activity. The late Palaoecene-early Eocene was a fairly active period in time but not active enough to cause the whole warming episode. What they think was the main cause of the warming was a sudden release of the methane clathrates in the shallow seas and deep oceans. The CO2 built up to the levels (which were already fairly high...around 1000ppm) where it heated the atmosphere enough to trigger the widespread release of the clathrates. It was only about a 1-3 degree rise in the previous average temp. Once that happened, it was on for young and old.

The reason why the CO2 concentration dropped back down to 600-800ppm, was the cooling of the planet after Antarctica begin to freeze over, starting during the Oligocene, around 30Ma. That's when we see first evidence for a large scale glaciation on the continent. It, at first, occurred in the interior, on the high plateau and mountains and gradually spread outwards. What brought it down to the levels we saw pre-industrial and such was when the psychrosphere formed...the circumpolar oceanic current that effectively cut Antarctica off from the rest of the world's ocean currents, except for the deep ocean current, which is cold anyway. That finally happened when Sth America split off from Antarctica around 7-13Ma. Another event that also helped was the closing of the Panama Isthmus around 2.5Ma, which most likely helped trigger the Nth Hemisphere ice ages. However, throughout most of the Tertiary and the beginning of the Quaternary, the average global temps were higher than what they are now.

Another thing which probably didn't help, even though it pumped a fair bit of CO2 into the atmosphere was La Garita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Garita_Caldera). Think Yellowstone was big...La Garita would've made the largest eruption at Yellowstone look like a dud firecracker. It was the largest volcanic eruption ever recorded in Earth history, as far as we know (maybe Siberia was larger but that's debatable). Enormously massive would be an understatement!!.

You also had continuing mountain building, especially with the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains and the Alps (and associated ranges). Their erosion helped to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, so what was initially a fairly high conc' of CO2 was gradually brought down to present levels.

If the CO2 went back up to 600ppm, it wouldn't be good. I would be worried about the clathrates. We're already seeing some sublimation due to an increase in the water temps surrounding the deposits. Given present oceanic conditions, 600ppm atmospheric CO2 might be a trigger point for a sustained sublimation of the clathrate. We don't know just yet, but I wouldn't want to risk it. If it was, as I've said before, we'd be in serious trouble.

I hope that's been of help:D

Oh, nearly forgot, here's a graph showing the temps during the Tertiary, right through to the Holocene (now).

glenc

17-12-2009, 08:41 PM

PeterW thanks for the link to the UNSW document "The Copenhagen Diagnosis (http://download.copenhagendiagnosis.org/)".
A summary is here: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_ES_English.pdf

PeterM and Carl thanks for your comments too.
Carl does the graph show that the temperature was 2C higher about 15M years ago?

renormalised

17-12-2009, 08:53 PM

Yep, gather all that hot air down in that big building in Canberra and use it to turnover turbines to generate the electricity. But don't let it escape...that'd be disastrous!!!!:P:D

renormalised

17-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Have a read of this...Ozone and CO2 uptake (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/ozone-hole-responsible-for-saturation-in-southern-oceans-co2-absorption_100210142.html)

marki

17-12-2009, 10:56 PM

As promised here are a few references from the artical.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/climate_1_pdf

Intergovernmental panel on climate change (2007), Fourth Assesment report, Cambridge University Press.

Monckton, C. (2009). Report to the US House of representatives Committee on energy and commerce. View at http://www.scotese.com/climate.html

Scotese, C, R., (2001). Paleomap Project. View at http://www.scotese.com/climate.html

Boucot, A, J., Xu, C, and Scotese, C. R., (2004). Phanerozoic climate zones and paleogeography with consideration of atmospheric CO2 levels. Paleotologicheskly Zhurnal, v2, pp 3 - 11.

http://deforrestation.geologist-1011.net/

Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127.

Soon, W., Baliunas, S, L, Robinson, A, B, Robinson, Z, W. (1999). Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Climate research. Vol 13, 149-164.

Hermann, A, D., Haupt, B, J., Patzkowsky, M, E Seldov, D, and Slingerland, R, L. (2004). Response of late ordovician paleooceannography to changes in sea level, continental drift and atmospheric pCO2: potential causes for long term cooling and glaciation. Paleogeog. Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol. 210: pp 385-481

Kaser , G., Hardy, D, R.,, Molg, T., Bradley, R, S., Hyera, T, M., (2004). Modern glacier retreat on kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: observations and facts. international journal of climatology, v 24, pp 329 -339.

Lyman, J., Willis, J., and Johnson, G. (2006). Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research letters 33.

Thats enough, I cant be bothered typing any more. What do you make of these, there are quite a few more on the list.

Mark

sjastro

18-12-2009, 10:24 AM

Thanks Mark,

Some of the links didn't work so let me concentrate on one of your references "Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127." http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N37/EDIT.php

It encapulates the spirit of your previous post hence it provides a good example.

What I find particularly disturbing about publications like this is that they are easily refuted.

Are students taught to recognize the weaknesses of these alternative views or are they exposed to it simply because it flies against the mainstream view?

If it's the latter then it is a sad state of affairs as it doesn't promote critical thinking and leads to the inevitable illogical conclusions and conspiracy theories that abound in debates like this.

If on the other hand the former is true it allows one to also critically analyse mainstream theory without blindly accepting or rejecting it.

Steven

renormalised

18-12-2009, 10:51 AM

Problem here, like you said Steven, is that you can take any dataset and make it say whatever you want. It all depends on the assumptions you have made in your models that you apply the data to. Like statistics, data can be made to say anything you like. What you have to do is to weed out any bias in your assumptions/models, apply the data and then see what the outcome is. Any conclusion can be refuted, whether it's for or against a particular proposal. That's why it is so important in science (or anything else) to teach students how to go about what you mentioned in your last sentence.

There is weakness in all views...both mainstream and alternative, and the students should both realise and understand this. Because an idea or theory is mainstream doesn't make it correct or the truth. Same applies for alternative views...they may sound great but it doesn't mean they're right.

mswhin63

18-12-2009, 10:54 AM

There is no real debate on climate change as each expert (real or so-called) have an area of interest and unable to crossover to another area of science. Each seemed to have formulated opinions and blinded by those opinions that they cannot make an agreement.

I personally think politics is the main cause of this and especially when governments around the world are cutting funding to different areas of science along with other things, these group or individuals become more aggressive in their stances to retain funding by fear. Without fear there is not much chance of funding to get more research.

This does not formulate my opinion though because I do not know whether global warming is natural or man-made, but there seems to be arguments on both sides. I really DO like the idea of pursuing some of the resolution advocated by the doom and gloom campaigners where-ever possible as if the man-made condition is true then I have done my part.
There is also the part of me called the realist that says if the condition is not man-made but a part of the earth cycle then I wish to realise this to possibly brace myself and my children to the potential of what may happen and possible ways of dealing with it if really needed.

To determin the real affect it need a collaborated effort with different people from different sides can get together and provide data together to form what is really happening and choose the correct course of action. I have seen this type of organisation work well mainly in the industry I am in with a single organisation can provide real benefit to all the different opinions about the disabilty.
The other distinct advanage is more oney can be provided to this organisation to hone on results quicker and more accurately.

Is this going to happen or is fear going to drive a one sided result (which may be accurate)

sjastro

18-12-2009, 11:50 AM

Carl,

My criticism is that the atmospheric physics doesn't support the idea of global warming/cooling through variations in solar output as the publication suggests.

On the question of data where does one draw the line (sorry for pun).
If statistics becomes the central point for argument, then any climate model can be summarily dismissed on those grounds.

My bias against climate deniers (blasted pun again) is the often blatant misinterpretation of data (eg. 1998 cherry picking) to support their views.

Climate scientists use 5 and 10 year moving point averages. There is nothing sinister in the statistics. It is designed to smooth out the noise caused by natural temperature variations.

Steven

stephenb

18-12-2009, 02:50 PM

I have not weighed into this debate before, but after hearing Greens Senator Christine Milne this morning on 3AW (Melbourne), People wonder why I am cynical towards some of the arguments.

She was commenting on Kevin Rudd's latest presentation at Copenhagen, and some of the statements she made were reference to Australia, and how climate change will/is affecting our country.

Three point she clearly stated:

1. The Great Barrier Reef is dying - no argument there.

2. "There are bushfires raging all over this country right now, caused by climate change" - where are all these bushfires???

3. "The World is running out of water" - my understanding is that the same amoune of water has existed on this planet for millions of years. Now all of a sudden we are "running out of water"??? What absolute bloody dribble. If this woman represents your beliefs, I would be embarrassed for you. If all these political experts who support the evidence that climate change is occuring, cannot agree on a world stage, what hope to we have?

I will now put my opinion out in the forum.

1. I believe that there is a large element of climate change occuring, but there is a portion of it which is natural and cyclic.

2. I do not believe that any form of Government ETS will be of any benefit to the population, only to make governments and businesses wealthier.

3. Wind and solar power are viable options as replacements to fossil fuels and should be given full 100 % support by all levels of government.

4. Residential home environmental and energy efficiency standards in this country are a scam. I repeat, SCAM. The standards in place pander to the Home industry groups, the Housing Industry Association and other interested parties, who have no interest in energy efficiency, only keeping all their "professional" tradepeople's pockets lined.

- Every home built in every new area should be designed with correct block orientation, overhaning EAVES calculated at the correct angle for Summer and Winter Sun, double glazing, recyclable water and minimum water tanks. NO HOUSE GETS AN OCCUPENCY OF CERTIFICATE UNLESS THESE BASIC CONDITIONS ARE MET.

michaellxv

18-12-2009, 03:14 PM

Sorry, had to share :P

We will now return you to your debate.

stephenb

18-12-2009, 03:15 PM

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Love it!

AstralTraveller

18-12-2009, 03:20 PM

"Sire!! The snowmen wish to speak with you"

"Tell 'em I'm busy until summer."

renormalised

18-12-2009, 03:47 PM

I never suggested that the physics, as we understand them presently, supported solar driven change via insolation variations. What I was saying is that you have to be careful of how you interpret your data, that your modeling be rigorous and as inclusive of all the variables and data as possible. That's what students need to be taught. To be rigorous in their modeling and interpretations, and to cast critical, but unbiased, eyes over all the science (for or against).

And, when you draw the line, make sure it's not so steep you fall off:P:D

avandonk

18-12-2009, 04:17 PM

When I find myself agreeing with Peter Ward I think that I may have lost the plot.

Getting back to the 'facts' that have been stated recently on this thread.

CO2 increases could never have preceeded the end of ice ages as we were not around to burn fossil fuels. Sustained volcanoes or other sources have not been a factor for many millions of years.

To claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is ignorance most sublime!

Marki's post was the most ridiculous set of statements I have ever seen.
Here it is again

"
Originally Posted by marki http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=535359#post535359)
The artical is titled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"

" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"

"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"

"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."

" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"

"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"

" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"

" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"

I could go on :P:D. This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark

This is all just a load of inconsequential barely quarter truths and/or distortions I have ever seen. I give it a total fail.

If this is what any teacher thinks they are completely misinformed.

It looks like it comes straight out of the denialist cult bible.

I have googled the heading and it appears nowhere apart from here.

If anyone can point me to where this came from. Or will you fess up marki.

Or is it a joke as it is labelled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"

Bert

AG Hybrid

18-12-2009, 04:27 PM

In regards to the bush fires. Theres about 80 just around the state of NSW at the moment.

While I think the generalisation is a bit outlandish of "The World is running out of water", perhapes if she worded it, "The World is running out of clean drinking water" I can understand that. No rain = No Water running into catchments. Australia is in its worst drought in... well ever! 9 years and running. Some country towns are now buying water which is delivered in tankers.

As an Agronomist I have a good understanding of climatology, hydrology and weather cycles. And I agree with some of this statment that an element of climate change is natural. However, its the accelerating rate it is changing at that is unnatural.
If you talk to any farmer or anyone who works on the land, they will tell you that the seasons are changing. Not the natural Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. But the month of which they occur. Some say, that from as recent as 15 years ago, they are now a month out to when they are ment to be. Also, certain seasons are lasting longer as well. Crop cycles are out of sync, fruit trees are confused flowering earlier, and then a freak occurance of frost will destroy their delicate flowers, thus ruining the yield because fruit wont develop from the damaged flowers.

I agree. Considering our contribution of C02 to the total released into the atmosphere by the entire world is 1.4%, why are we punishing ourselves trying to reduce it in such a way? Whats sad about this is a big bushfire can single-handedly ruin our efforts.

While this looks great on paper. The concept of totally clean energy. if you take a closer look, you'll see there are some serious issues to applying renewable energy of the such at a large scale.
The problem is the world is ran by money. An renewable energy will only be embraced fully if it can make money, and fast. At the moment. A solar panel takes 15-20 years to pay itself off in power generation. Now, western governments arnt going to spend enormous amounts of money on infrastructure that wont pay itself off for a decade and a half. All though we know its to be the right thing to do.
That being said, goverment tend not to be in power long enough to really get major construction/infrastructure projects going/completed before another political party comes into power and cancels it(in Australia at least). A good example of this is the construction of the Sydney harbour bridge and the Sydney opera house. Look into their histroy and the struggle it took to build them, and how the changes in government from labor to Lib nearly robbed us from our greatest national icons.
Especially now that a climate change sceptic is in charge of the libs.

The possible solution? At least in the short to medium term while, the renewable technology develops. Is that we should move to nuclear power :eyepop:. I know this is unpopular because most Australians are ignorant and dont take the time to understand the subject. The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe. France is rocking over 50 of them. Don't see them going up in a cloud of nuclear fallout aye? While expensive to setup they can provide the energy needs of the modern western lifestyle without the Co2 emissions, none at all actually. Solar panels and wind just can't generate the energy required as of yet. I mean if its a cloudy day, energy production is greatly reduced. If theres no wind, no power is produced.
What about nuclear waste I hear you say? Did you know the daily waste from a medium sized nuclear power plant is about the size of a panadol table? You could fit an entire years worth into a lunch box. The storage systems of the waste is safe. Damn near unbreakable infact.

Oh but where will we put it?? NOT IN MY BACKYARD! Am I right?
Well Australia is lucky to have lots of deserts and empty space. Surely we can find some place to build a facility.

Not to forget to mention that Australia has one of if not the richest source of yellow cake in the world. If you think about it. It really not a bad option.

Mind you, Instead of spending enormous amounts of money on renewable energy and I suppose if its to unpopular -nuclear power. I think we should invest in Hydrogen fuel cell technology. Now thats exciting.
A) Because Hydrogen as all astronomers here probably already know, is the most abundant element in the universe. Awesome we have a energy source. The only waste from the hydrogen fuel cell process is water.
B) Inregards to cars we can substitute petrol with H.To use it we wont even have to change our lifestyles(of course we have to buy new cars). Think about it, our lives and cities are build around the car. We can go from destination A to B. A car is freedom. With hundreds of millions of cars around the world, life can stay releatively the same. Imagine the green house gas reduction if they no longer burned hydro carbons. All green house targets met. Everyone wins. Unless your an oil company.

I hope its the way we go. I dont want to have to build a wind turbine on the roof on my house because we dont have enough room to generate enough electricity, obstructing my view of the night sky.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 04:41 PM

Yes, hydrogen fuel cells...waste from the cell = water vapour.

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and far more efficient at trapping IR energy than CO2. Start releasing vast amounts of it into the atmosphere and your problems will magnify beyond all proportion.

Yes, hydrogen fuel cells. But within a closed cycle system.

slt

18-12-2009, 05:00 PM

Here's a good explanation on how the proposed ETS (or "Cap & Trade" in yank parlance) will "work" (worth watching methinks):

http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

glenc

18-12-2009, 05:30 PM

Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Lester R. Brown
This book is available as a free download.
It talks about food shortages due to climate change and ways to reduce the effects of climate change.
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4
“In this impressively researched manifesto for change, Brown bluntly sets out the challenges and offers an achievable road map for solving the climate change crisis.” —The Guardian

FredSnerd

18-12-2009, 05:35 PM

No!! Nuclear power is unpopular with most Australians because its a stupid idea. Becuase they know we would be trying to fix one great big mess with another great big mess. This statment is always made "The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe" (there were people such as yourself saying the same about Chernobal) and its absurd because you cant guarantee the safty of them no more then you could guarantee that a aroplane will never go down. There are always accidents only the scale of this accident is herendus. And what about when they're not accidents. When someone with a poltical agenda decides on sabotage. Thank God most australians are not as smart as you

glenc

18-12-2009, 05:51 PM

The French safely produce 79% of their electricity using 58 nuclear power plants.
Here is some information on 4th generation nuclear power: http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/

Peter Ward

18-12-2009, 06:02 PM

:rofl:

No worries Bert.......Peter (AKA Dinsdale Piranha)

AG Hybrid

18-12-2009, 06:04 PM

Pointing out chernobyl. What a surprise. You would think from such a comment that humans dont learn from their mistakes and improve on themselves.

Its this approach and some what backward thinking thats going to disadvantage Australia. Especially in reducing CO2 and reaching targets. Suppose if you had it your way their would be no nuclear reactors at all, ever? Like Lucas Heights perhapes?

I dont mind opposition to it. I expected it. Its a touchy subject. Judging by your hostilities I have touched a nerve too?

All I'm saying, the people of Australia should go and do the research. Everyone has the internet now, they can all go and find out for themselves, instead of eating what politicians of different agenda feed them.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 06:05 PM

Actually, Claude, everyone in the know, knew that the design for the Chernobyl power plant's reactors was faulty right from the start. Even the designers of the plant knew it...it was purely a political decision which saw them built in the first place, despite what the engineers advised.

Those 4th generation powerplants are safe...a lot safer than the older style of plants and far safer than coal fired plants. They can't melt down because they're designed not to...the reactor vessels can't get hot enough to melt the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the fuel rods are designed not overheat (due to the design of the fuel pellets). If no one could guarantee the safety of anything just because of its design or what it used, you'd never be driving around in cars. You wouldn't even get out of bed in the morning.

Bet you didn't know that a lot of coal mines are actually loaded with radon gas...yes, radioactive gas. It seeps into the coal seams from the granites which invariably intrude into many of the coal basins. It gets trapped less porous layers of the sedimentary rocks and stays there until it's disturbed. Then you have the effects of all the other gases that seep from coal mines. And the effects of coal dust and silicate particles being breathed into people's lungs. Plus the results of burning the stuff.

Personally, I'd rather see a viable form of power generation via fusion come online as soon as possible, but until then, I'd rather take a chance on nuclear (fission) energy. Being backed up by your usual suspects (wind, solar etc).

stephenb

18-12-2009, 06:09 PM

Adrian, I appreciate your replies on my post.

1. Bushfires. It's bloody Summer, isn't it??? :rolleyes: We've been having bushfires in.. Summer as long as I can remember, and I hazard a guess that bushfires generally hvae been occurring in Summer for millions of years. All of a sudden they are caused by climate change!

2. Regarding her comment "The world is running out of water" - perhaps a generalisation yes, but more a result of a politician reading from a party line, and not thinking for herself as to actually what she was saying. And I'll guess that most listeners to her interview weren't even absorbing the content of her statements.

There are obviously better experts on this forum than humble people like myself who do not proclaim to be either a climatologist, agronomist, or any expert in this field who can cite dozens of books and reference publications, so I'll leave this topic to the IIS climat experts.

AG Hybrid

18-12-2009, 06:11 PM

Well I didnt mean to have a go at you. If you know what I mean. But you had brought up all the right topics in one post... and I was like, well while Im here...:)

To be honest, Im very glad to see a thread like this. People talking about climate change and giving constructive oppinions on the subject and on polices to deal with it. Because this will effect us all. Thus I believe everyone should have their say.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 06:16 PM

Well, the planet is running out of water....good, clean water for drinking and such. But only because we waste so much of the stuff and what we do with the rest is pollute it. It's not that the actual amount of freshwater on the planet has changed, it's how it's being utilised that is the problem. It's what our usage of the freshwater does to the supplies and what we happen to add to it that makes the difference.

stephenb

18-12-2009, 06:16 PM

I didn't take it that way, mate, just replying to you. And as I said, everyone's a expert on climate change these days. Which is fine with me because I don't even proclaim to be an armchair expert.:lol:

AG Hybrid

18-12-2009, 06:25 PM

Ahh see the information is there to be found.

Actually I hear sea wave power is very effiecient. I believe there is a large coastal town in Scotland or the UK that recieves nearly all its electricity needs from it.

Australia has alot of coastline!

Peter Ward

18-12-2009, 06:25 PM

Adrian. Bravo! I could not have put it better!

A clear succinct and informative critique.

Popular solutions (eg no Nukes! ) are often poorly thought through.

Many issues we now face now require expertise and engineering, and what might be the most palatable to the general population is not by definition the best way to go.

Short of a benevolent dictatorship however, agents of change for the greater good might be thin on the ground.

Lord knows the're not in Canberra.:shrug:

stephenb

18-12-2009, 06:27 PM

I'm more than happy to believe in either side of the argument, and as I said, I do believe they're is an strong element of truth about climate change.

Good in theory, Adrian, but don't assume that people are stupid followers because the do not Google every single topic that is supposed to matter to them. My only issue is that it is now being clouded so much by elements from each side who are now pushing lies and false data (well, that's the perception in the media AND here on IIS). So what's the result for a lot of the population? They get tired of listening to it and move on to more pressing day-to-day issues. I have a dozen daily issues to deal with in our household before I even begin to contemplate sitting on the computer and Googling link after link after link of climate change information. And I'd guess that would go for a lot of the community.

What has to occur is all the so-called experts must provide 2 balanced viewpoints in a well-presented, easy to read format (not pages and pages or cited references and publications, such as on this forum), for the avarage person to absorb and understand. Only then will the average member of the public start supporting the cause. Because any climate change action is not going to occur at government levels.

And yes, Adrian, your comments do make a lots of sense, as do many others in this thread.

As I said, I'll leave this thread to all the experts.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 06:29 PM

They're not anywhere, Peter. Nothing will come from Copenhagen, and whatever decision is made, no one will take any notice of it. Kyoto was a joke and this little party will be no better.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 06:48 PM

The danger in trying to simplify the science to put it into terms that the public can easily digest is that the science can lose its meaning and a lot of data which is crucial to explaining what's going on can be lost in the translation. It can also be open to further abuse. It's precisely what's happening in the media now.

The general public are not scientifically literate, most probably only barely passed science at school, if they did any at all in senior high. In most cases, trying to explain complicated subjects like global climate will be ignored for the most part because it's science and most people feel it's too hard to understand in any case. Plus, it's also attitude which is important...many people would rather deal with the immediate concerns of life, as you have said, rather than worry about what might happen in the future.

If you want to impress people with an idea, hit them where it will hurt the most...their finances and their families. How do you think the environmental lobbies do so well with their campaigns...they play on people's immediate concerns and emotions. In other words, a scare campaign. They know full well that people are generally ignorant of the nitty gritty, but they will make decisions based on an emotive response to a particular issue before they make a more considered response, from a position of knowledge. It's how pollies operate as well. It's an effective tool for social engineering, it's also one that's all too often abused.

marki

18-12-2009, 06:49 PM

Bert, although I was feeling a bit cheeky knowing the response it would get (yes I had you and Steven firmly in mind when I typed it up:P ) the statements I have posted are directly out of a science teaching journal (Current issue as a lit review) and are not my thoughts or words. I also posted a list of references that were cited in the article if you dig back down the posts a bit. I must say it was probably the most biased piece of writing I have laid eyes on for sometime (read propaganda) but it looks like the CO2 polluting industries are taking the tree huggers on at their own game (ie educate the kids). Do you think I should pass this information onto my students ;):D.

PS: The article came from SCIOS (Journal of the science teachers association of WA) authored by Dr John Happs (education expert and consultant).

PPS: I have sent the editor an email.

Mark

marki

18-12-2009, 07:04 PM

Steven I always teach from the perspective of the skeptic if that makes any sense. I do my very best to get students to be critical of all the information and concepts I expose them to. Unfortunatey I do not always succeed but can only do my best. I have never accepted anything as a done deal theory law or otherwise, they are just useful tools until we find something better. Would I expose my kids to the crap in this artical? Too right I will :D. How else will they learn to sort the excrement from the clay.

Mark

FredSnerd

18-12-2009, 08:32 PM

Carl,

I think you make my point. Everyone it seems knew that Chernobyl was faulty yet they went ahead and built it; they went ahead and told everyone it was safe and they went ahead and built it for purely political reasons. All these factors (and billions of others we haven’t even thought of yet) can happen again and again in the next 10, 20, 50 etc years to bring about a nuclear disaster. To say its safe is like saying the concord aeroplane is safe. In another context that level of risk might be acceptable but in the context of the nuclear debate its not because the consequences of one disaster are just so devastating. Probability says something will go wrong esp when you consider how long the danger remains and the continuing proliferation of more reactors. And all the environmental benefits we might derive from nuclear power, say over a 50 year period can be undone in the space of an afternoon and whole continents can be affected as we saw in the case of Chernobyl. That’s why its meaningless to say its safe. In the context of nuclear power you got to say something more. You got to say its guaranteed, which ofcourse you cant. No instrument that man has created, NOT ONE can be guaranteed against mishap. And the consequences are too great to risk here.

Oh he mentioned Chernobyl. Not fair, that’s hitting below the belt.

Adrian, if my reply was touchy I apologise but I think you might not be correct in assuming that the touchiness was due to the subject matter. Indeed it may in fact have had something to do with your rudeness in suggesting that anyone who didn’t agree with you about nuclear power was ignorant and had not done their homework (oh and of course you have – what a joke).

Chernobyl needs to be screamed from the roof tops every time someone says lets go nuclear because no matter what systems you devise nuclear disaster will happen again. Oh and since we're here we may as well also mention Kyshtym, Three Mile Island, Windscale, and Church Rock to name a few more.

sjastro

18-12-2009, 08:53 PM

What's the next step? Sneak Intelligent Design into the curriculum, teach it as a science subject and sack the science teachers.:D

Steven

renormalised

18-12-2009, 09:22 PM

That being the case, we'd be better off going back to the caves. Give up technology altogether and go live it "au naturale", so to speak.

If anyone thinks that solar power and wind, at present, can "save" us, so to speak, is seriously deluded. The wind is unreliable, even where it does blow more consistently than elsewhere...and your solar power stations are at their best only run at 25% efficiency and what happens during inclement weather and at night. Then you need efficient storage methods, which as yet we don't have. The most promising of these two methods is solar, but if you expect it to provide the majority of you power needs, at an efficient and consistent rate, you're going to have to increase the conversion from sunlight to usable power dramatically and provide efficient storage of energy for off peak power generation and during times when power can't be generated. At present, the technology doesn't cut it. So, how long are you going to wait for them to develop the technology?? In the meantime, do we just keep going along as we are now, merrily polluting our atmosphere??

We need answers now, not in 10 or 20 years. We have to use what we have at our disposal and right now the present crop of nuclear technologies is the best bet we have. They are far more efficient and less likely to go south than previous technologies, but in any case we still need to have safeguards in place. It would be wonderful if we had working fusion reactors now. I wish we did, but you're looking at a lead time of some 15-30 years before we have a commercially viable fusion reactor. That's 15-30 years too long. Once we have them, then yes, get them up and running. Our energy problems will be pretty moot then.

What would be even better would be a solar technology that was 70-90% efficient in collecting and converting sunlight into energy. I suggest you look at quasicrystal for a possible answer.

renormalised

18-12-2009, 09:22 PM

They've done that in the UK already:eyepop:

Peter Ward

18-12-2009, 10:05 PM

Care to put a (global) number on coal industry workers who die every year?

styleman333

18-12-2009, 10:30 PM

Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2153PnMzS

Very Interesting...

marki

18-12-2009, 10:34 PM

Yes and we will do the flying spaghetti monster to even things out :P. Seriously what concerns me about the article is that we have a number of primary school suscribers and there are a large number of non science trained teachers who are going to read it.

Mark

Peter Ward

18-12-2009, 11:05 PM

Seems amazing to me how the anti-nuclear power advocates chant Chernobyl...yet don't seem quite as vocal in accepting the very real human (and environmental) cost of coal fired power:

Over 6000 coal miners killed in China in 2004 alone.

4000 new cases of black lung occur in USA mine workers every year, along with around 50 deaths. (isn't Wiki cool? )

Aussie stats are a little harder to find...but it seems Oz coal miners have a 1:28 chance of being killed (!!) from mining.

French (nuke) power reactor fatalities. Zero. Not bad after 40 years of operations.

Damed lies and statistics? I think not.

FredSnerd

18-12-2009, 11:50 PM

Carl, how does that follow. 60 years ago, just before nuclear energy, we didnt live in caves; we wernt living "au naturale". Not using nuclear energy does not mean not using technology.

You know, we dont live in a fairy tale world. Adjustments have to be made to the way we live so our demand on fossil fule genuinly reduces. Trying to fix the problem with something thats just going to be a much bigger problem in a few years time is not a fix at all. You say we cant wait 20-30 years but of course if we make some sacrafies on our demands then we can wait. But of couse at present that will never happen because the system is geared up to encouraging you to want and demand and buy until you drop. As they are saying in Copenhargen; to fix climate change we need system change.

mswhin63

19-12-2009, 12:27 AM

Here here, coal is killing everyone slowly or just making us sick. Nuclear has it's risks but Chernobyl was poorly managed by a country that was not ready to take on the venture. I think a lot of people woke up when that happened and a lot more care is considered before putting in Nuclear. That event will never go away and maybe that is a good thing to remind us the need for good management, but it should not be condemned as a good power source.

With all the infomration put to the media , you here all the negatives put about nuclear about Chernobyl but never hear about the stats on coal mining.

mswhin63

19-12-2009, 12:30 AM

I think there is too many people in the world to go back to "au naturale". It would be nice but just unrealist. A happy medium yes. I just can't see it happening while the country is run by the rich.

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 12:33 AM

Peter,

And of course the Chinese authorities have spared no expense to ensure that their miners are protected from disease and accident. Clearly US employers could do better but you know, the bean counters call the shots and they will only spend so much on protecting their workers after considering other factors including what the market will pay, the success rate of court actions and the average payout after court action (same in Australia).

BTW, as for the 4000 US cases of Black lung, it seems that the condition sounds much worse then it really is. Apparently in most cases it only slightly affects lung function and is often asymptomatic (yes I agree Wiki is cool - the peoples encyclopaedia - As an aside don't you think its amazing how people working voluntarily have put together such a comprehensive encyclopaedia many times bigger and better then the commercial varieties).

Anyways I'm very heartened by all this concern for miners safety and I would encourage you to campaign for the chinese etc to spend more on protecting the safety of their miners but to suggest we should go over to nuclear to make up for employer's failing in this regard does not make much sense to me esp when many more deaths and environmental degradation is likely to occur down the track if we adopt nuclear energy.

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 01:29 AM

Indeed Chernobyl was poorly managed but do you think all will be OK as long as we are reminded that we need good management. The financial meltdown (apt expression) was poor management too (and by people who have devoted their life to devising systems for protecting their $$$$). But its not just poor management and S%&T that happens. Cutting corners happens; cost cutting happens; political expediency happens; conflict of interest happens; fires happen, floods happen; sabotge happens and we could go on. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear power plant and the more we build the more likely a major nuclear accident will occur. To suggest otherwise is either not being truthful with one's self or not being truthful with us.

renormalised

19-12-2009, 02:17 AM

There's no such thing as a safe oil refinery, or a safe coal mine, oil tanker, drilling platform, pipeline, airliner, skyscraper....where are you going to stop with labeling something as being unsafe?? They're all vulnerable to attack or sabotage. They're all vulnerable to cost cutting, unsafe construction, political corruption and expediency etc etc. Nothing is 100% safe. You know they still can't take fish from the Princess Charlotte Sound in Alaska, and how long has it been since the Exxon Valdez?? Destroy a major oil refinery or an oil field and see what happens. Or better yet, dam two huge rivers and then pump all the water out of a once thriving sea to grow cotton and wheat. Pump the place full of pesticides and watch what happens. Think Chernobyl was bad, you should see what's happened since they've done exactly what I have just told you to the Aral Sea. The cancer rates after Chernobyl pale in comparison to what's happened to the people around the Aral. Not to deny that Chernobyl was bad, but there have been far worse disasters than it, that have affected far more people for a lot longer.

Regardless of whatever they decide or don't decide upon at Copenhagen, or whatever other conference they will hold in the future (and you can be certain they will), nothing is really going to change. Not unless everyone, and I mean everyone (every single individual of the 6.7 billion on this planet) takes the responsibility for change (on all levels, not just for climate) into their own hands, learn to co-operate with one another and realise that we're all in this together. Can it happen??. Yes, it can. Will it happen?? That's a question only you can answer, and everyone else can answer. Ultimately, the politicians won't make the decision, nor will the financial institutions or the big multinational corporations. It's not in their interests to do so. Not unless they can control everything that goes on and make a profit from it. In which case it'll be the same old wolf, just dressed in another sheepskin.

So, what's the answer??

Let tell you what I think will happen...I hope it doesn't come to this because I hope humanity finally wakes up to itself and grows up....things will go on as they are now. They'll tinker around the edges, make a few token gestures, but nothing in the final analysis will change. The planet will reach a tipping point in the future and things will rapidly go downhill from there. We will suffer for the consequences of our stupidity and so will the planet. If we're lucky, we may just survive as a species but we're going to take a lot of others with us if we do go, or just scrape by. Probably after several hundred years of living in a sorry mess we will have come to realise just how woeful we were as a species, and hopefully will grow up, look back in hindsight and then set about rebuilding our civilisation. Except this time, we take a different path.

Maybe it's our fate to learn the hard way, but I hope by saying this, the chances of that outcome above become close to zero. Let's hope that we can do something about what we're doing to ourselves before it's too late.

glenc

19-12-2009, 06:49 AM

Stephen said: "What has to occur is all the so-called experts must provide 2 balanced viewpoints in a well-presented, easy to read format (not pages and pages or cited references and publications, such as on this forum), for the average person to absorb and understand. Only then will the average member of the public start supporting the cause."

This is one half of that, a one page summary from the UNSW. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/d...ES_English.pdf (http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_ES_English.pdf )
The detail is here: "The Copenhagen Diagnosis (http://download.copenhagendiagnosis.org/)".

We can drive over the crest of the [climate] hill on the wrong side of the road, and hope that nothing is coming, but it's a risky move.
As I understand it humankind has never seen a 3C rise in temperature and the consequences are uncertain.
Here are some suggested action plans: http://bravenewclimate.com/climate-action-plans/
and http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

The latest draft from Copenhagen is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/091218copenhagen_accord.pdf

Barrykgerdes

19-12-2009, 10:31 AM

I see the rich nations have agreed to limit the temerature rise to two degrees. Ha! Ha! As we are probably approaching the top of the temperature cycle it is a pretty safe bet that the temperature rise will be less than that so the pollies while be able to say they were right.

Baz

glenc

19-12-2009, 11:00 AM

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Either they say the world is not actually getting warmer or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

renormalised

19-12-2009, 11:22 AM

We have, actually, at the end of the last Ice Age, but that was coming from a low base. Now it seems to be happening from a higher base.

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 11:52 AM

Baz, to have such complete confidence when the overwhelming line up of experts is that human induced global warming is happening, dramatically deminishes your credibility. IC you now purport to be able to estimate where the top of the temperature cycle will be. Where did you get that from? A 10 min segment on the Kerrie Ann show. Have you ever entertained the possibility that all those experts may be right and if not why not. And if yes what is it that they are saying that most makes you feel uneasy about your position.

mswhin63

19-12-2009, 12:03 PM

I don't think we are anywhere near the top of the natural cycle, according to the graph we still have a long way to go.

glenc

19-12-2009, 12:10 PM

Yes, I meant a 3C rise above recent levels not a 3C difference peak to peak.

Unfortunately the recent draft from Copenhagen was not made by all of the big emitters: China, USA, EU, Russia, India and Japan.
President Obama said the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa had "agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2C and, importantly, to take action to meet this objective".

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 12:25 PM

Carl

As I have said, what singles out nuclear power is the extent of the potential disaster with just one nuclear accident. As it happens with Chernobyl some things went right. There wasnt a nuclear explosion (most of the damage was due to fall out) But probability says that one of these days we wont be so lucky. Even so the fallout from Chernobyl was 400 times more than that released from Hiroshima. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Northern Europe, with some nuclear rain falling as far away as Ireland. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people (not fish). What area were you saying was effected by Exxon Valdez. Thats right, Princess Charlotte Sound. The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe

I agree entirely. We need to make real sacrafices and most importantly we need to get back control and implement a strategy that really addresses the problem rather then some bull#@!t scheme to make some people rich.

glenc

19-12-2009, 12:37 PM

Claude "Integral Fast Reactor design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/

marki

19-12-2009, 12:42 PM

Claude I don't know why you persist to argue the case against nuclear power based on a fear that the reactor will go critical. In modern reactors this is a non event, they are very safe and have a very large magnitude of safety built in as we have learned from our mistakes. Why not try something that is 100% certainty, what do we do with the waste?

Mark

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 12:47 PM

Glen
How often do we hear of failsafe systems that go wrong. There is no such beast and indeed one of the official findings into the Chernobyl disaster is that those concerned held too much faith in the reactor; to them, a catastrophe was simply inconceivable.

AG Hybrid

19-12-2009, 12:54 PM

This is from the article posted by Glen

"There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons ‘fast’ during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely burn the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only sever decades, thus largely solving the nuclear waste problem. The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors. Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate buildup of long-lived nuclear waste."

Sounds pretty good aye?

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 12:57 PM

Mark, I agree there are lots of other problems with nuclear power we haven't touched on like waste as you mention and water pollution etc. As for the safety issue, I think statements that "it is safe" are frankly absurd. You may as well be standing on the Titanic declaring "It is unsinkable" How often have we fallen for that kind of rubbish, disseminated by people who only have one thing on their mind. Selling!!!

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 12:59 PM

Yeah, I think they have a name for it "Too good to be true"

renormalised

19-12-2009, 01:21 PM

You obviously don't understand the mechanics and physics of a nuclear explosion. There's no way that a nuclear power plant can go critical because the uranium in the plant hasn't been brought together under sufficient pressure to force the runaway reaction. If it was that easy to make uranium go critical, you'd never be able to build a powerplant!!!. In any case, you need to have an initiator source of fast neutrons to set off an explosion. They normally use polonium in nukes to achieve this. If you use plutonium in the powerplant, the only way to initiate the explosion is to implode enough of the plutonium to get it to initiate fission. The implosion has to be very precise, otherwise you just get an unholy mess scattered all over the place.

The only thing that will cause a nuke powerplant to explode is what happened at Chernobyl...enough of the uranium overheated and formed a pool of ultra hot metal in the reactor vessel. This, then, generated superheated steam when they shutdown the cooling pumps and that blew off the roof of the reactor building.

As for the Exxon Valdez....you've taken my comment there completely out of context with the rest of what I wrote. I never compared that disaster with Chernobyl. I was stating just how dangerous the oil industry can be if things go wrong, whether that be by misadventure or deliberate sabotage. 2.4 million Ukrainians is a lot of people, but what about the millions of people over the 50-60 years they've stuffed around with the Aral Sea...I've seen some pretty ghastly mutations of unborn babies caused by the environmental train wreck they've unleashed there. All in bottles of formaldehyde, sitting on shelves in the local hospitals and at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. People can't live there either, but they still do and the numbers of cancers and other diseases there have been alarmingly higher than elsewhere, for decades. The place is a poisoned cesspool.

renormalised

19-12-2009, 01:40 PM

It's like I said before, Claude. Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. If you want that you might as well discard all technology and go back to living in caves. Even there, you could scorch yourself on an open fire.

If you want to see some progress being made in energy generation technologies, you're going to have to wait some time before things get a move along. Until then, we can only use what we have at hand, what our best and most consistently reliable sources for power generation are. At present, wind and solar are stopgap measures. They're not reliable or consistent enough to be the main power generating systems for society. Might be great for small to medium sized communities, but try and power a large city with them...or a whole nation. How many square kilometres of countryside are you prepared to put under mirrors or solar cells in order to power Canberra, or Sydney, or Melbourne?? You'd have the environmentalists complaining about that, then!!!!. Or, they'd complain about having to mine all the silica sand in order to make the mirrors and/or solar cells. They're never satisfied unless they hear themselves whining about something. 99% of them haven't a clue about what they're talking about. The other 1% aren't there solely for the sake of the environment, either.

If we have to go nuclear, then that's what we have to do. I'd rather do that than hold off on the promise of a "brighter" tomorrow, when that technology might take years to develop. We don't have decades left to hang around and wait. Once we have that technology, then we can implement it. The nukes can then be taken offline and dealt with in just the same fashion as the coal plants will have to be dealt with. Carefully.

mswhin63

19-12-2009, 01:50 PM

So we can say the same thing about planes, When they have an accident they affect a large amount of people in one hit, yet they are still the safest mode of transport, so did Chernobyl. On the same issue, the current climate circumstance is affecting Billions of people not 2.4 million. Not only that we are suffering a lot more slowly over a lot more generations as well.

Whether the issue is natural or man made there need to be something done quickly and nuclear power is the way even if for a short term. I would also like to see more wind power and solar wherever possible.

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 02:19 PM

Carl I don't pretend to have an expert knowledge of the inner workings of an nuclear reactor but with all due respect I'm not entirely satisfied that you do either. Either you are splitting hairs with me or your first 2 paragraphs are contradicted by the following from Wiki

" There is the view that "the second explosion .... was of a nuclear nature, i.e., the thermal explosion of the reactor as a result of the uncontrollable escape of fast neutrons, caused by the complete water loss in the reactor core. The high positive void coefficient makes this version of the emergency entirely plausible.

Yes I checked what you said about Exxon and you did not compare that disaster with Chernobyl (it was not deliberate on my part) but I’m agreeing with you that we need to change our environmental hostile ways. Where we differ is that your solution is to add another environmentally hazardous activity to the mix (nuclear power) and I’m saying (i) How on earth is that a fix and (ii) that’s a crazy strategy. And as for the Aral Sea project, I’m not sure what you are trying to say; that there have been worse ecological disasters then Chernobyl. Yeah so? Should the Aral Sea project have happened. Hell no!!! But what’s that got to do with the nuclear debate. We definately need to chnage our ways and IMO one important way is not to sprinkle the earth with nuclear material all over the place.

Peter Ward

19-12-2009, 02:28 PM

This is a furphy of the first order.

There have been many post Chernobyl investigations about the effects on public health that have been subject to vast controversy. It is not clear whether these health problems were not simply caused by poor weflare, poor nutrition, poverty and overall poor health levels.

To be sure, the incidence of thyroid cancers did increase and these were directly attributable to the meltdown. But the numbers are sketchy best, with no more than a few dozen individuals being affected.

It was much easier for the Minister to blame the disaster...which it clearly was, rather than a decrepid State system during the subsequent clean up.

By all measures the actual number killed directly from Chernobyl was around 30 to 40 workers. There were significant population re-locations, and farm lands were rendered useless by low level fallout.

(Ironic that cotton farmers in the upper Murray-Darling can do the same to their southern counterparts....by low level rainfall)

The seer lack of comprehension by many, on how nuclear power works staggers me.

In the Sutherland shire we still have zealots who carry on like drongos regarding the
research reactor at Lucas Heights.

Their catch-cry? "we don't want another Chernobyl" They don't have a clue that would be physically impossible....and a sad reflection on how poorly the sciences are now taught in Oz.

By the way....I saw no refutation to the fact there have been *zero* fatalities from the French nuclear power program. Yet we kill tens of thousands every year burning fossil fuels.....apparenty even one death by acute radiation exposure is far more of a problem.

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 02:32 PM

No we cant say the same thing about planes or cars etc. When a plane or car crashes it does not render the envornoment a no go zone for hundreds of years. It does not displace hundreds of thousands of people in one go. it doesnet cause cancers in hundreds of thousands of people.

As for your other remark you have decided that the only solution to global warming is this other hazardous activity and I say no, that's not correct. Before you add another hazardous pollutant to my environment, stop your level of consumption; change your lifestyle; alter your expectations and most importantly change the system for one that will truly address global warming and not pretend to address it for the benefit of the elite that our politicians truly represent.

AG Hybrid

19-12-2009, 02:39 PM

The nature of these people perplex me sometimes.

Do they know that the lucas heights reactor produces the isotopes that we use in our x-ray machines in hosiptals? What about for the treatment of cancer with chemotherapy?

Solanum

19-12-2009, 02:54 PM

This is a tough one for me. I've always been against nuclear power for a number of reasons, 1) even if the risk of a serious catastrophe is small, should that risk be realised the consequences are potentially very great, 2) one of the main reasons for governments pushing nuclear power in the 60's and 70's was to get material for nuclear weapons (which I abhor), 3) the grasp of the technology was not as great as claimed and thus the risk of an accident was probably not as low as thought and 4) there was the big problem of waste which takes a v. long time (depending on the isotope involved) to lose its danger.

I am still somewhat on the fence.

1) Can we really get significant nuclear power generation faster than solar etc.? If we started building power stations now, it would be decades before we had a significant generating capacity (say 50% of requirement). Australia simply could not suddenly design and build that many power stations.

2) The consequences of an accident are still very high (however low the risk).

3) However good a modern plant may be it is still storing a problem for the future, as far as I know no large plant has been decommissioned anywhere in the world (except by accident). In the UK, the dodgy old magnox reactors are mostly still running. One has been largely shut if I recall correctly because it was too hard to keep going, but it is not decommissioned. The others are kept going because no one wants to deal with the decommissioning it's too hard and too expensive. Every nuclear power plant is a problem for the future.

4) Obtaining the uranium is an environmentally catastrophic process and the more we mine the bigger the mess.

5) As far as I know, no sizeable version of these wonderfully 'safe' fourth gen nuclear reactors have actually been built yet. It's not off the shelf technology we can just get on with building and any rapid deployment of nuclear reactors probably isn't going to be fourth gen.

However, right now CO2 emission is probably a bigger problem for the future than dealing with old nuclear reactors and waste. Also most studies of people affected by the Chernobyl disaster have shown that whilst there are most certainly problems (cancers, genetic deformities etc.), they are a lot less than anticipated. So I would support the introduction of nuclear power if 1) it can be proven that we can build a worthwhile generating capacity quicker than solar and 2) it is not done at the expense of investments in renewable power (nuclear is by no means renewable), maybe take away the billions we give to the coal industry in tax breaks and use that?

AG Hybrid

19-12-2009, 03:04 PM

I very much like your reasoning. Although, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning. theres been quite a bit of decommissioning.

While I dont think solar power directly has the capacity to provide our power needs. There are two engineering firms, one in Australia and one in the US that build mirrors that reflect the suns heat to boil water in pipes. The steam is then channeled to turn turbines that generate power. Much in the same way coal fire powerplants power generates electricity.

Wont be such a big hurdle to produce because the technology is already here. Of course the problematic issue of cloudy days and night time still remain.

Go go hyrdrogen fuel cell power plants!!!!! umm...close circuit though, I think renormalised suggested. :)

FredSnerd

19-12-2009, 03:06 PM

Solanum,

I think you make some excellant points. But IMO you are wanting to fix the problem by creating an even bigger problem for the future and thats just digging an even deeper hole that ultimately we may never be able to get out of.

Solanum

19-12-2009, 03:14 PM

More than I thought I admit, but if you look at that list and exclude Chernobyl and Three Mile Island you find that most of the rest are either in "standby" ie not decommissioned, or were early experimental reactors.

I missed that part of the thread I think so perhaps Carl suggested other options, but I spoke to the guys running the Australian Greenhouse Office about this a few years back, and do you know where they want to get the hydrogen from? COAL and OIL!!!

Hydrogen fuel cells are a fantastic invention, but need hydrogen. I think they are good option for transportable power, but I'm not sure about generating capacity. Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, on earth we need energy to get it, which takes us back to square one...

Solanum

19-12-2009, 03:24 PM

You may be right, I am certainly not enthusiastic about it. Right now it appears to me though that the future problems with CO2 emissions are greater than the future problems with nuclear power. Getting people to change their lifestyles would be great, but I would say that looking at the history of humanity, there is now way it is going to happen.

My (very idealistic and naive!!!) solution to the whole thing is this. Divide the amount of CO2 emissions that we think the climate can withstand by the population of the world. For each country, multiply the result by the population, cap that countries allowable emissions at that level. Then you allow free trade for those caps, so that in effect rich polluters pay poor countries for their unused emissions. This has two benefits (in my eyes), one it shifts money from rich to poor, two it gives a massive financial benefit to developing renewable technologies, also the value of those emissions would be set by the market so no one can accuse it of being a 'tax'. However, this would never happen in a million years because the rich countries would never agree to it and there is no one to enforce it.

glenc

19-12-2009, 06:08 PM

This is an expanding series of ‘documentary’ videos posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&view=videos), underpinned by excellent production values, and narrated with a dash of humour to keep the material interesting. Each weekly ’smashing of the crockery’ lasts about 5 to 10 minutes, so it’s not a huge time committment to follow this, week in, week out...
So far, the following 16 episodes have been posted (listed below in so particular order — you can watch them in any sequence) — the blurbs after the title are by the producer:
Solar Schmolar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page) — A favorite hobby horse of Climate Denialists is that there is some kind of invisible, undetectable influence from the sun that is responsible for the unequivocal warming of the last century. Let’s put that crock under a microscope and see where the cracks are.
The rest are listed here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/18/climate-denial-crock/

renormalised

19-12-2009, 06:49 PM

I just went a read what you wrote here from the Chernobyl page. I think you need to go back and carefully read what's there, rather than pull stuff out of the page that may suit your PoV.

Exactly what I wrote before is what actually occurred. A runaway meltdown in the core of the reactor caused by the workers there allowing the water to overheat after exposing the core. There was no nuclear explosion...the meltdown of the rods in the core was caused by fast neutrons causing a cascade effect in the reactions within the core...it's similar to what happens in the initial stages of a nuclear explosion, but it is not an explosion. There weren't enough fast neutrons to cause an explosive runaway critical reaction to begin with...to go critical you have to initiate a massive cascade of fast neutrons to fission the uranium and the only way to do that is to have something present which will give off vast numbers of fast neutrons...polonium is one such element which will give off fast neutrons under compression. U238 is another...in the initial neutron cascade, the neutrons and other particles which hit the U238 nuclei produce even more neutrons and start the runaway reaction process. The U238 in a bomb basically acts as a neutron source and contains the initial cascade, so not too many of the neutrons leak away. When they want to reduce the yield of a bomb, they use lead, cadmium or cesium to absorb the neutrons. It's also the reason why they use cadmium (or xenon) in control rods. The idiots had pulled out all the control rods during their restart!!!!. Any halfwit could've told them what would have happened!!! They also lost most of the water in the reactor through their own stupidity and inexperience. When the water that was present flashed into steam, it reacted with whatever else was in the reactor area and catalysed into hydrogen and oxygen. With all that heat around, it was only a matter of time before it all went sky high.

The void co-efficient is nothing more than how the reactor core reacts when changes occur in the the bubbles, or voids, the heat of the reactor generates in the moderating medium they use to cool and help control the reactions in the core. If they use water and they allow the core to uncontrollably heat up, it produces steam voids. This allows any fast neutrons to go to town within the core...the cores reactions go out of control, the core heats up uncontrollably, melts and does its worst. A highly positive void coefficient means there's stuff all moderator in the core and mostly pockets of steam. So, the core is pretty much empty.

So, I wasn't splitting hairs...and I know what they were talking about on the Chernobyl page at Wiki.

glenc

20-12-2009, 02:11 AM

Claude, the risks from nuclear energy are much less than the risks from climate change.
France has used nuclear power safely for many years and France produces 6.2 tonnes of CO2 per person per year.
Australia produce 18.1 tonnes of CO2 per person per year and 38% of our emissions come from electricity generation.
(16% of Australia's CO2 comes from agriculture and 15% from transport)
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/emissions.aspx

mswhin63

20-12-2009, 02:16 AM

I think it would be more accurate to say risk is less than human made CO2 and not Climate change, because it is still highly possible that climate change is due to natural events. Irrespective you are right Nuclear is far better solution than current methods.

glenc

20-12-2009, 02:32 AM

Malcolm I suggest you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

stephenb

20-12-2009, 08:16 AM

You all bring up some interesting points regarding nuclear power. Whilst I have always sat on the fence when it comes to nuclear power, I am reading it with interest and keeping an open mind.

stephenb

20-12-2009, 08:32 AM

You all bring up some interesting points regarding nuclear power. Whilst I have always sat on the fence when it comes to nuclear power, I am reading it with interest and keeping an open mind.

Claude, this is not directed at you, but your comments are often touted as a response to this issue...

We all need electricity generation now. Many of us still need fossil fuels to burn in our cars now.

How do I stop my level of consumption?

We all still have to live our lives.

I can only change my lifestyle so much.

I can only recycle so much.

Personally, I think my small contribution is acheiving diddly-squat but I am doing it. The problem is are the other 5 billion people on this planet doing thier bit?

When I sit here typing this post, whilst calling out to my daughter to "turn off her bedroom light", I also have images of the non-stop pollution which is occuring in major manufacturing countries, such as China, and wonder why I bother, but I do bother, because it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

supernova1965

20-12-2009, 08:35 AM

I think if you are truthful with yourself and watch this short video you can no longer deny that human's are causing this warming. Now we just have to fix it.

glenc

20-12-2009, 09:09 AM

Copenhagen failed to deliver the required result.
I think the best way forward now is a “carbon tax with 100 percent dividend”.

"If the United States [or Australia] accedes to the ineffectual ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ approach [CPRS/ETS], in effect continuation of the Kyoto Protocol approach, it will practically guarantee disastrous climate change. Instead it should persuasively argue that other countries also adopt tax and dividend. The countries agreeing to this approach will also agree that imports from a country that does not apply a comparable carbon tax will be taxed at the port of entry. That tax, which should be added to the public’s dividend, will be a strong incentive for all countries to participate."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/27/hansen-to-obama-pt-ii-carbon-tax-with-100-dividend/

China, the United States, the European Union, Russia, India and Japan emit 71% of the World's CO2.
We need agreement from them, but don't hold your breath.

supernova1965

20-12-2009, 09:30 AM

To call it a failure is not completely accurate sure we didn't get all that was needed I personally think that trying to get everything that is needed is like trying to herd cat's. But think about the fact that we have just had world leaders actually talking together never before has so many been in the same room for such a discussion that's progress right there. Sadly this hasn't delivered the complete package needed but it could have been worse we have some agreement the bar has been moved up if we hadn't got this agreement we would have got nothing which has to be worse than what we got. This means that for the next meeting we have a higher starting point forward progress is better than none at all. Really with all the different points of view right or wrong to have come up with agreement even grudging about anything is a positive outcome. Unfortunately it took a long time in human terms to get into this position and as a result it could take some time to come to a solution we will have to adapt and do what we can to minimise the negative changes that we can't do anything about and stop what we can.

FredSnerd

20-12-2009, 02:32 PM

Stephen,
I have a bit of a longish answer for you I’m afraid. I assure you I get to your question eventually. Regards

If you and a group of people (all strangers to each other) landed on a deserted island and when you arrived you were told that the island has very limited recourses and has a very fragile environment, the first thing that would happen is that everyone would agree to share the recourses evenly and everyone would agree to regulate their activities and even ban some, to protect the environment. These people wouldn’t have to be talked into this. There wouldn’t be long debates into the wee hours of the morning. No, quite the opposite. It would be almost automatic, because instinctively we know that (i) it’s fair and (ii) any other approach is bound to end up in tension, instability, probably war and sadly, mutual destruction. Can you imagine what would happen if someone on this island were to say “No wait a minute. I’m worth more then you and therefore entitled to more”. I doubt anyone would have the courage to say it but lets assume that someone did and he/she survived, do you think it would be seriously discussed.

There are those who want us to believe that deep down we humans are naturally greedy and competitive. But I think most of us know that its never really just one thing. People on the island automatically choose to share the resources and regulate harmful activity because humans are also powerfully gregarious and social, especially when their backs are against the wall. In such times they almost automatically prefer co-operation and fairness because they instinctively know how destructive competition and greed can be, especially at such times.

I know what your saying, its not that simple and this is not a deserted island. Yes, sadly I think you’re right. Because if this were a deserted island we would automatically see what we would have to do to survive. If the system continues to encourage us to produce and consume more and more and faster and faster because an endlessly growing economy is our only measure of success, then no carbon trading scheme and whatever bull#$%t they come up with will save us.

Stephen, you strike me as a very conscientious person and I have no doubt that you do your bit and more towards alleviating global warming (and I’m not assuming for one moment that I would do as much). But since you ask what else can we do, may I offer this. They keep saying that to solve global warming we must look outside the box. But they don’t really want us to look too far outside the box. They only want us to look far enough to see their stupid carbon trading scheme (while they continue to crank the wheel for more productivity, more consumption). OK I’m looking outside the box. Change the system. Ideologically most of us might be capitalists but nature isn’t. If we want to avoid the tension, war and possible destruction that will come with diminishing resources we have to equitably share the resources and if our activities are destroying the planet we have to regulate those activities. How? Simple. We make laws. EG, make it illegal to manufacture and distribute junk mail, plastic bags; anything you manufacture has to have a longer life span, longer warranties, no more disposable everything, no more commercial manufacture of any stupid thing. And for those who say you can’t interfere with people’s rights that way I’d like to ask do they support the Chinese government’s one child policy. How much of an interference in a person’s rights is telling someone that they can’t have a baby, yet many will say that such laws are OK. What about all the people who have jobs in those industries. Why should they be made to pay. They shouldn’t. We should all bear the cost of ensuring that they continue to draw a wage and retrain. And to those whose eyes are popping out with rage or the sheer heresy of it all I'd say, this is the solution that those people on the Island would automatically implement without a moments hesitation. Why? Because its obvious.

Our politicians who gave up representing us a long time ago want us to believe that the only way to fight global warming is in a capitalist context. Apparently, despite what’s happening we will continue to measure human success by ever growing economies. Each year every country is to have a bigger economy then the year before. Each year more productivity then the year before. Each year gorge ourselves more on the diminishing resources. But don’t worry, there will now be this little casino happening. The Crown Casino Carbon Trading Bash and from now on everything will be just dandy.

So what else can we do. Well I can tell you what I’m gonna do. Everything I can to win back our political system so that it is what it promised to be. A democracy, so I have a genuine say and not a b#$%^&t say. And when some so called leader announces that he/she and a few mates are having a get together to decide a very critical question on which my survival and the survival of my children depends I’m gonna expect to be invited to attend and have a real vote on what’s decided. Because if I can’t even have a say on something as basic as that, what am I.

glenc

21-12-2009, 05:08 AM

These YouTube videos are interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

glenc

21-12-2009, 05:09 AM

"With no new commitments on the table, and loopholes still wide open, Schaeffer and colleagues find that the world is on track to warm by 3.5 ºC by 2100, and concentrations of carbon dioxide are set to rise to around 700 parts per million – far above the 450 ppm scientists say constitute the limit for keeping global warming below 2 ºC..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18309-copenhagen-chaos-sets-world-on-track-for-35-c.html?full=true

glenc

21-12-2009, 05:53 AM

You can reduce your CO2 by installing a solar HWS and/or some solar panels.
You can also buy economical cars like these:
3.7 L/100 km Ford Fiesta 1.6L diesel hatch
4.7 L/100 km Hyundai i30 1.6L diesel hatch
5.3 L/100 km VW Golf 2.0L diesel hatch
6.0 L/100 km Mazda 6 2.2L diesel wagon
Here is some info on cars: http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/mynrma/hs.xsl/australias-best-cars-2009.htm
http://www.drive.com.au/Drive-Car-Of-The-Year
http://www.caradvice.com.au/50650/ford-fiesta-econetic-review/

astronut

21-12-2009, 08:33 AM

The "Wise Ones of Copenhagen" have set a limit of 2 degrees temperature rise for our planet!!
Yeh Right!! They're going to limit warming:lol:
Even if the globe is warming (it is actually cooling) how are you going to stop it warming above the 2 Degree limit set out by these delegates?
You might as well stand on a cliff at dawn and ask the Sun to rise an hour later, you will have more success.
How arrogant can you get?

supernova1965

21-12-2009, 08:40 AM

If you want to say the Globe is cooling how do you explain this which was posted earlier in this thread. Or can't we believe people of the caliber of Sir David Attenborough:). And we already ask the sun to rise and hour later its called Daylight Saving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

stephenb

21-12-2009, 09:16 AM

Thanks Warren for posting this. I have always admired and respected Sir David Attenborough

glenc

21-12-2009, 09:33 AM

John wrote "Even if the globe is warming (it is actually cooling)"
How do you explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0&feature=channel_page
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=channel_page

renormalised

21-12-2009, 12:45 PM

Oh well, we're just heading "back to the future"...it'll be just like the Miocene:D

astronut

21-12-2009, 07:20 PM

Lord Monckton, long but worthwhile listening to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

glenc

22-12-2009, 05:00 AM

Lord M is discredited here: http://www.desmogblog.com/lord-monckton-and-rep-john-shimkus-declare-global-warming-emissions-plant-food
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=channel_page
Leading the horse to water, Shimkus asks, “If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?”
“Yes indeed you are,” Monckton replied.
Monckton's predictions about Copenhagen were crazy, and Alan Jones was silly to promote them on 2GB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

gaa_ian

22-12-2009, 07:05 AM

There has been a slight dip in global temperatures.
This has been related too the decrease in solar activity (100yr low) (measurable) and a corresponding increase in cosmic ray bombardment (http://www.askthescienceguru.com/?p=217) of our atmosphere (measurable) = more seed molecules for clouds, more clouds = dip in temperature (measurable)!
Guess what ..... The sun is getting active again and the temperature rise is set to increase again.
Its like the farmer who has 2 or 3 good seasons and thinks drought wont come again ...... he is headed for ruin.
Climate change sceptic's pounce on data that favours their case.
Tell the slowly dying reefs (http://www.askthescienceguru.com/?p=134) of the world that ocean acidification is "nothing to do with us".

glenc

22-12-2009, 04:30 PM

These are the CO2 outputs for 2007.
Rank, Country, million tonnes per year, tonnes per person (bold is > 10)
0 World 29,914 , 4.5
1 China 6,284 , 4.8
2 United States 6,007 , 19.9
3 Russia 1,673 , 11.8
4 India 1,401 , 1.2 (the least per person in this list)
5 Japan 1,262 , 9.9
6 Germany 835 , 10.1
7 Canada 590 , 17.9
8 UK 564 , 9.3
9 South Korea 516 , 10.7
10 Iran 490 , 7.5
11 Italy 461 , 7.9
12 Australia 456 , 22.0 (the most per person in this list)
13 Mexico 453 , 4.2
14 South Africa 452 , 9.4
15 Saudi Arabia 434 , 15.7
16 France 405 , 6.4
17 Brazil 398 , 2.1
18 Spain 383 , 9.5
18 Ukraine 354 , 7.7
20 Indonesia 319 , 1.4
Reference:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy

Bassnut

22-12-2009, 07:58 PM

How does this rate on the Dross meter? :D

/Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.
Just 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour.
Just 10 metres left to go.
9 metres are argon.
1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% is produced by Mother Nature.
It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution. /

glenc

22-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Fred I am also opposed to Kev's ETS but that small amount of CO2 is a serious threat.
Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk

"97% is produced by Mother Nature" is not correct. CO2 levels have risen from 275ppm to 386ppm since 1750, a 40% increase.
China, India, etc. have an excuse to increase their CO2 emissions because the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. are producing large amounts of CO2 per person.
We can't expect India to reduce their CO2 output if our CO2 output per person is 18 times greater.

Bassnut

22-12-2009, 08:13 PM

I recieved this in a typical mass distributed email, thats what the hoi poli understands, simple and easy to believe. I know CO2 has a non linear effect, it was just an example of what crap there is out there to confuse the issue.

supernova1965

22-12-2009, 08:36 PM

Our very Hobby is a based on science so I find it hard to believe that there is any debate going on here I thought that evidence is what mattered I think that ample evidence has been produced to show that the globe is warming and arguing about it is really getting us nowhere. Don't forget that a straw or a hair can break a camels back. I believe that humans are causing warming but that's only my opinion. Everyone has the right to an informed opinion it really doesn't matter why the globe is warming all that matters is that it is warming and what are we going to do about it I find it hard to understand how anyone can deny that the planet is warming sure it has been going up and down but the trend line is up each peak is higher that the one before it and has been since the late 70's.

netwolf

25-12-2009, 02:29 AM

I always belived that it is better to act and do something to change the human condition rather than do nothing.

After watching a few of the videos above i clicked on one that was displayed as the end as a related topic video. And this is perhaps in line with what I have alwasy thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

We dont know the future but can we agree that we want to make it better? So what action will remove the risk of total catastrophee? To not act seems inexusable. To act is the only logical and sensible option.

The real question is what Actions do we take. We can not leave this one to the politicians, the lawyers, the gready, the media. Instead I think it would be better to fund studies into alternatives lead by respected Scholars with reputations beyond reproach. The research and study should have no interference from Government, lawyers, patents, etc etc. There should be only Ethical and Moral oversight. We stick every best mind in this area onto the various problems.

Hope/pray for the best and prepare for the worst. Is there any other choice? Do to do nothing might save us for a recesion or depression, but at what risk? We have survived Depressions and recessions. Can we survive the alternative? The dinosaurs did not make it perhaps that event was a road sign for us to pay attention to. To learn something from.

Why to we wear seatbelts, or use child safety seats, or take an umberalla on a cloudy day? We prefer not to risk the alternative.

BTW third world countries like India have 6 perhaps 7 Nuclear power plants. With all the corruption there they still mange to keep those running safely. And yet we have people shouting slogans in Australia about we dont want Chenobyl. Perhaps we should ask them why do we call ourselves the Clever country?

"Fear is the mind killer" Dune. Courage is to act with Fear.

Who knows maybe it will be good for our community to say um maybe get everyone to turn of there lights at night..... Good deads never go un rewarded.

And say using cheaper fuel alternatives might stop those gready Petrol companies from taking our hard earned dollars, better spent buying Telescopes..