Climate Change, some interesting data

[flappist]

I just stole this from LS1, thanks Ryzz.

Interesting read athough I am sure our resident "experts" will arc up as usual.

http://www.excelerate.com.au/downloa...esentation.pps

It is powerpoint so you will need a reader of some type.

[burnz]

if you read the latest science journal, the nerd's have given up on climate change.
because it's too late to change government and population opinion. (the damage is done)
98% of scientist agree the climate will change, these nerd's are not funded buy vested interests.

so the nerd's are working on "geo climate" where they can control the seasonal weather.
--------------------------------------
carbon tax will it work?? probably not. but it will make someone rich?? yes.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by flappist

Interesting read athough I am sure our resident "experts" will arc up as usual.
.

Cynical much?
it might interest you that some our members are actually qualified scientists and could be considered "experts".
can you tell who is or who isnt?
on that note i say good stuff, carbon trading is another of many bad ideas by krudd.

[ltd]

Thanks flappist, another great find.
What's interesting though, is that as the world slowly realises the scam, governments around the world are still insistent upon this new world order derived tax.

[King Nothing]

Can of worms? Check

Can opener? Check

$225/tonne? That will pretty much shut down any business with any significant CO2 footprint, especially steel and concrete. As I said in an earlier post, steel in coil form has an embodied CO2 of 2.1 t CO2/t steel. So at $US 225/t CO2, a tonne of steel will have an additional carbon cost of $US 472.50.

To put that in context, May coil price was $US 474/tonne. Peak was $US 1099/tonne in August 2008. So thats a 43-100% increase in global steel prices. Imagine what that will do to the cost of cars, construction, appliances, infrastructure, everything really.

There is a real risk that with the implementation of an ETS in Australia, without countries like China following the same lead, it will drive all manufacturing overseas. To the detriment of our own economy, and for absolutely no change in CO2 emissions. The above figures give an illustration of what is possible.

[MO]

Originally Posted by xy500

Cynical much?
it might interest you that some our members are actually qualified scientists and could be considered "experts".
can you tell who is or who isnt?
on that note i say good stuff, carbon trading is another of many bad ideas by krudd.

'.....qualified scientists...' how about you tell us who they are.
'.....experts....' well we all know the definition of an expert,.drip under pressure etc.
'....carbon trading...' I don't think Kevin actually came up with that idea.

Well here we go again,have comfy chair,bar fridge,nibbles now to watch the fun.

[burnz]

i think poeple should read this as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2
and this the money trail.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets

[Wally]

I guess the my main stumbling point is that plants might like CO2, but they don't grow much without stable rainfall. It seems we are already paying a lot of money to drought stricken farmers, to dam builders, desalination engineers, pipeline contractors, etc to mitigate the effects of erratic rainfall.

Graphs are always wheeled out with convenient x-y axis scales to prove/disprove a point of view. I just rely on my diary and memory for key dates on weather (Melbourne Cup, AFL GF, EKKA, Easter, Anniversary, Birthday, etc). When I hit 100 I reckon I'll have a pattern and exit strategy worked out.

[Airmon]

I've always been sick of hearing car manufacturers claiming their 'green' cars emit nothing but 'harmless' water vapour and not much Carbon dioxide. This is percieved by the public as being 'green' as well, its simply just water, harmless right? They fail to mention that Water vapour is the worst (worst is not the best word to describe it but in this context it will work) greenhouse gas aswell as the most common and will trap more heat then CO2.

Its a good powerpoint from the other side of the fence, and as most people only hear 1 side of the argument it is good to get this out into the public to let others decide for themselves. And as always there will be those who disagree, which doesn't make their points any less valid, but I think everyone in this thread should remember to respect the other view.

Although one thing not mentioned is that the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere has had an effect on ocean inhabitants. Mainly a decrease in the thickness of shells due to a build up of Carbolic acid.

[ltd]

I had entertained the thought of a guns blazing,full frontal attack on the climate change cultists but inevitably, the thread will be closed and some members may grow to dislike others. Further, climate change has become a political football and as we know, politics are not to be discussed as per the Terms and conditions. So have fun, I'm taking my bat and balls and going home.

[pottery beige]

Ho hum.. The worlds climate was changing for millions of years.. Well before man and the industrial revolution big dirty factories pumping yucky stuff into the atmosphere invention of the car etc etc i'm over all the scare mongering and other weak excuses to just personally tax my life to oblivion.. Now wheres my keys.. Time for a drive in my gas guzzling planet killer!!.. :

[GK]

Originally Posted by flappist

I just stole this from LS1, thanks Ryzz.

Interesting read athough I am sure our resident "experts" will arc up as usual.

http://www.excelerate.com.au/downloa...esentation.pps

It is powerpoint so you will need a reader of some type.

Nice find.

I've sent it to my collegue who's adament that we must do everything we can right now.

He tells the students this, I tell them that it's bogus and an excuse for more control and taxes.

Good fun really!

GK

[Stattic]

that was a really good read... very interesting

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by flappist

Interesting read athough I am sure our resident "experts" will arc up as usual.

The Right wing lobby group Leon Ashby is president of is calling for debate about climate change.

Flappist IMHO if you want debate, you need to engage with those you wish to persuade, not belittle them or beat them over the head.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

The Right wing lobby group Leon Ashby is president of is calling for debate about climate change.

Flappist IMHO if you want debate, you need to engage with those you wish to persuade, not belittle them or beat them over the head.

I was not looking for debate on this, I put it there for people to read as it seems to demonstrate what many are starting to realise.

My prophesy was that some might try to debunk it with rhetoric rather than evidence or try to turn it into a party political skirmish.

Now if I could just do the same with Lotto numbers...................

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by flappist

I was not looking for debate on this, I put it there for people to read as it seems to demonstrate what many are starting to realise.

My prophesy was that some might try to debunk it with rhetoric rather than evidence or try to turn it into a party political skirmish.

Now if I could just do the same with Lotto numbers...................

Hmmm suggesting your OP is evidence and not party political.

Your prophesy is self for filling.

Hi there all, firstly my usual Login of torbirdie has been out of action for nearly a week, the mods dont know why, so ive registered another user name -cant be more upfront than that.

I looked at the slide show by climateskeptics.com.au and offer some critical comments. It is an important issue, so my response is lengthy. Hopefully this will not present a problem, especially since most would have most likely taken the time to read the climateskeptics.com.au presentation at the start of the thread

1st impressions, it starts off ok by claiming they accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but then the whole presentation takes on some selective quoting of CO2 data and some illogical conclusions that man's CO2 emissions have no effect.

We also have selective quoting of temperatures from only post 1998, showing they are going down?, what isn’t highlighted is that 1998 provides an all time peak and the years since 1998 are still above average temperature with two of them being higher than anything previous to 1998.

Generously, this could be labelled as ignorant, but looking through the rest of the presentation it seems that deception of the masses is the main aim and follows the doctrine/rhetoric set out in the Heartland Institute’s skeptic’s handbook:

http://www.heartland.org/books/SkepticsHandbook.html

Have a look at:

http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.c...-sceptics.html

It would seem that Leon Ashby intentions (president of climateskeptics and the other organisations he has a hand in) are really self serving:

See the “beef” that he had with the Qld government restricting land clearing:

http://www2.abc.net.au/landline/sforum1/default.htm

But he/they could still have a point?

What is wrong with his/their conclusion on CO2s role on global warming?

We are presented with correct data such as that man only contributes 1% to total global emissions of CO2 and that CO2 itself only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, so hence there is no problem?

No, the main problem that they don’t mention that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ~30% in the last 100 years! A trivial omission?

Yes the environment releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, but this huge amount is constantly being reabsorbed at about the same rate, the net change is zero or an equilibrium of ~280ppm of atmospheric CO2(100 years ago and considerably beyond).
The atmosphere is only a medium for this change, at any one time it only holds a fraction of the total CO2 emitted and reabsorbed. Just like the post office at any one time only holds a fraction of the mail that they process in a given year.

Unfortunately at the moment the net change is not zero, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 30% in 100 years to about 350ppm today. What is happening that the “tiny” amount that man produces each year is not getting reabsorbed, it is building up in the atmosphere, a new equilibrium has been attained, a warmer one.
To use the post office analogy, more mail is being sent than can be delivered, so there is a slow build up at the post office.

This extra build up in the atmosphere is easily accounted for by the amount of CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels and reduction in forestation areas and can clearly not be considered the result as just the consequence of any natural release of CO2 due to volcanic activity or similar.

It is not the 99% of CO2 that is absorbed and reabsorbed that determines how much greenhouse effect there is. It is the relatively tiny amount of CO2 actually in the atmosphere that has an effect

The science of how this “tiny” amount of CO2 absorbs emitted IR and transfers to this to other gases in the atmosphere, is not new- http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.,


Really, climateskeptics.com.au, have shot themselves in the foot here, they acknowleged the greenhouse effect due to CO2, then point out it is not the cause of warming because CO2 levels created by man are insignificant(they tried the deception about the co2 being only 1% of 3.6% or a mm in a km ….. ) however, the only relevant numbers to greenhouse action is atmospheric CO2 which has increased by 30%.


There is also an attempt to ‘cloud’ the issue with the greenhouse action of water vapour. Yes, it has more effect than CO2, however, the amount of water in the atmosphere basically will stay constant and depends mainly on the temperature, there has not been a significant change in the water composition, however, with increasing temperatures this will change(more liquid H2O changing phase), the amplified or feedback greenhouse effect.
Yes, surprise, the climate scientists have examined all the aspects of water vapour/other gases up there very carefully.

Climateskeptics shows us what will happen to plant growth with the extra increases in atmospheric concentration of CO2 .

Yes, the growth of some plant species is enhanced by more CO2. Yes, they have correctly referred to the science of photosynthesis, although they didn’t get that quite right, carbon dioxide is not broken down into oxygen and carbon by sunlight, a minor point, but doesn’t give us great confidence in Mr Ashby claiming “real” scientists have got climate science wrong when climateskeptics/advisors don’t even know the products of photosynthesis?

Also have a look at the numbers 535ppm for their first slide, Lord help us if we ever get to that, at 1000ppm most of us will have trouble breathing just sitting down, and they have projections for plant growth increases up to 2400ppm, the plants will be there for aliens to enjoy?

But according to them earlier these same “incywincy” increases in CO2 could not possibly have any effect when we look at the greenhouse role of CO2?

What would have been more relevant was to show us the well established science of how greenhouse temps will increase with even small increases in CO2 concentration, but that would spoil everything.
Yes, even over 100 years ago, they did experiments to verify this.

What it also doesn’t spell out is that plant growth on the typical farm is not usually limited by CO2 availability.

Does increased CO2 and temperature seem to be helping farmers grow crops in this country?, why not ask farmer Leon Ashby himself. Clearly water is the limiting factor.


Mr Ashby and his learned advisors, appear to be having a punt in four different directions?
Warming is not due to increasing CO2, it’s the sun stupid!

But then go on to tell us that temperatures are falling?

Man’s contribution to the globes CO2 is so insignificant as to not be important for greenhouse IR absorption.

We’ll be able to grow bumper crops(world will be a better place) with the same level of “insignificant” CO2 increases.

Not really sure which argument to go with are they?

For those who are interested they can research /find all the arguments/distortions(they aren’t new) presented by climateskeptics.com and how those arguments fall down upon any half serious examination.

In all sincerity, the aim of their presentation is not to fool anyone that understands the science of global warming.

They realise there are many out there that want to be shown that global warming is a hoax, (certainly you can count me as one of them).

The denialist outfits have seized upon this and have made presentations that people want to read, with flawed interpretations and selective quoting of data, with the all important bottom line of “the scientists have got it wrong”.

That is enough for many people, ie “ I read an article that Jono at xforums sent me and it said mans CO2 is only 0.0003% of .0004% yada yada…………. global warming is all wrong”. Its what they want to hear, end of story, no need to examine or check it out?

How many people here did a basic search into the background of climateskeptics and its president Leon Ashby? and its consequent connections with the HeartlandInstitute and ultimately sponsorship by Exxon), a handful at best.

For the denial industry, success has been achieved, it doesn’t matter to them that there arguments can easily be exposed . They have sowed the seeds of doubt in a significant number of people and have now got many of the public walking around either believing that there is contradictory evidence or that it’s a scam


The presentation does have some worth, the ets, certainly does appear to have some problems and that does need serious discussion, but on the lines of what can we do about the problem of gw rather than denying it.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by DrKarl

Hi there all, ..................

For the denial industry, success has been achieved, it doesn’t matter to them that there arguments can easily be exposed . They have sowed the seeds of doubt in a significant number of people and have now got many of the public walking around either believing that there is contradictory evidence or that it’s a scam.

Proponents for Global Warming such as yourself grasp onto, and try to expand, (as you so boringly have) any argument the pro lobby wants to put forward.

The against lobby such as myself, simply throw your last paragraph back at you by transposing "denial industry" for "pro industry" and are content to watch the lemmings fall over the cliff.

comment withdrawn

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Pedro

Proponents for Global Warming such as yourself grasp onto, and try to expand, (as you so boringly have) any argument the pro lobby wants to put forward.

The against lobby such as myself, simply throw your last paragraph back at you by transposing "denial industry" for "pro industry" and are content to watch the lemmings fall over the cliff.

sponsored by: J howard, G.W. bush, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson

[CAT600]

I am not even sure why this topic still gets debated.

Unless the whole world is prepared to scale back 80-90% and walk away from basically any industry that provides modern day construction materials of any form, nothing is going to change.

Just look what happened to all the big talk that was spewed forth by world leaders when the global economy went to crap last year...............

It evaporated faster than a puddle of fossil fuel under a globally warmed sky.

Forget about it, like it or not nothing will change the course we are on.

Daniel

[snappy]

Originally Posted by CAT600

I am not even sure why this topic still gets debated.

Unless the whole world is prepared to scale back 80-90% and walk away from basically any industry that provides modern day construction materials of any form, nothing is going to change.

Just look what happened to all the big talk that was spewed forth by world leaders when the global economy went to crap last year...............

It evaporated faster than a puddle of fossil fuel under a globally warmed sky.

Forget about it, like it or not nothing will change the course we are on.

Daniel

Your right and wrong , Yes nothing will change except everything it will cost more

[MO]

OMG this is too good to be true,'torbirdie' is reincarnated as DrKarl,DrKarl!!... really torbirdie you take the cake.
I wonder what the REAL Dr Karl would think of this,you using his name to purport yourself up there at his level of intellect.
This does present a very big can of worms now does'nt it.

[Walt Kowalski]

Here's an idea.

Lets tax those evil businesses that create carbon.

Its an evil thing anyway and makes weeds grow too much.

The tax income could be put to many uses. Maybe we could build more centrelink offices.

If those evil businesses don't change their polluting ways lets tax them more!

Then there is even more tax to go around.

If those businesses decide to close down thats not our problem.

Someone will still make what they make to fill the void

Those nice people in China or India will no doubt make what the Aussie businesses used to make so consumers will still be able to buy it.

Probably a bit cheaper too.

Problem is there are no controls on polluton in those 2 aforementioned countries so to produce the item there will now be more pollution and to get the product to our Australian consumer there will be more transport.

The E T S is a scam.

Its a big lie. Part of a bigger lie which believe it or not is part of an even bigger lie. The biggest lie ever. But I am probably getting too far ahead here.

I am all for clean living with as little pollution as possible but all the E T S will do is destroy jobs in Australia and export the productiuon to countries with NO pollution constraints.

Man made climate change is a con.

Maybe its time I reintroduced my old signature about the matter.

And a message to Dr Karl go light another cone.

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by DrKarl

Hi there all, firstly my usual Login of torbirdie has been out of action for nearly a week, the mods dont know why, so ive registered another user name -cant be more upfront than that.

I have had enough, if you going to take the effort to re register and head straight for here, then ultimately these forums are not for you.

Duplicate accounts will be banned

[FPV8U]

I honestly don't know where to stand on all this anymore, hard to know whats right & wrong, i think i'll just keep doing what im doing, save asmuch water as i can and get used to candles at night as with the predicted rise in power costs (Even though i practically live next to the power stations) we won't be able to afford to have more than one T.V or one computer on at a time..

[Walt Kowalski]

Originally Posted by Walt Kowalski

The E T S is a scam.

Extra Tax Scam

[ltd]

Thanks Laminge, I've still got a headache from the last bit of drivel torbirdie/DrKarl wrote on the subject in a post I started over a month ago. This thread met a very timely demise as it all became a one poster, one sided argument. This poster would not even register counter opinions to his; just dismissed them as ignorant.
And you banned him........ You legend.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by ltd

Thanks Laminge, I've still got a headache from the last bit of drivel torbirdie/DrKarl wrote on the subject in a post I started over a month ago. This thread met a very timely demise as it all became a one poster, one sided argument. This poster would not even register counter opinions to his; just dismissed them as ignorant.
And you banned him........ You legend.

Yep! - Ol' Minge saved heaps of C02 when he shot that duck!

[xy500]

Originally Posted by MO

'.....qualified scientists...' how about you tell us who they are.
'.....experts....' well we all know the definition of an expert,.drip under pressure etc.
'....carbon trading...' I don't think Kevin actually came up with that idea.

Well here we go again,have comfy chair,bar fridge,nibbles now to watch the fun.

far out i didnt even think someone would have a go at me about that one. You want someone to name the scientists among us? i don't see the need.
Of course kevo didnt come up with carbon trading, he couldn't come up with an original idea for the country if he was paid to.
I just love how the media tells you that "scientists say the world is heating up too much and we're all doomed" when in actuality there is very little peer reviewed literature that would make a statement anything like it. But it somehow became accepted and i am sure will go down as a historical laughing point, much like how people believed the earth was flat contrary to the evidence.
The trouble with mass media is we all seem to start acting like a massive herd of sheep.