Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

Liverpool said:
The only thing that is ridiculous here is that you seem to be oblivious corruption being on more than one side of the debate.

I won't bother responding to the Youtube clip Livers, I prefer to form my opinion based on the work of climatologists, these little red herrings you keep throwing up have little to do with science.

What I find a bit cheeky is your insistence we are making a 'small contribution' yet avoid offering any alternative hypothesis apart from the fact that the world has endured temperature fluctuations in the past. What exactly is 'small' anyway, care to quantify?

And for what it's worth, several members of my family are scientists and I've encountered many more through chance meetings. I can emphatically tell you that none have been motivated by money, and most are loathe to even speak to politicians, let alone lobby them for more money. They are also deeply disturbed by the political trend of quantifying all research into dollar terms. Most groundbreaking research is actually non-linear and can veer off in all sorts of obscure directions. Scientists are also bound by the process of peer review which lends itself to a greater level of transparency. Some scientists get it wrong but it's at that point where you need to look at the general consensus. If 97% of your specialists told you needed a certain type of treatment, would you opt for the 3%?

As for your desperate search for absolute facts, I'm not sure how that is possible when we're talking about the future. Science has never been about absolute truths in any case. It's constantly evolving and reinventing itself. This is where I think we differ, I'm perfectly open to new hypotheses about climate change but it's the science I'm interested in. You seem to think it's largely a natural phenomenon so how so? I'm all ears.
 
Liverpool said:
Its only discredited if you don't agree with it ;)

Unfortunately no Livers its discredited because its wrong. The article you quoted that re-ignited this thread and, very briefly (maybe they knew something?), brought the nay-sayers out contained information that was factually incorrect. This is not opinion. It was based on an article that also got the facts wrong and both your source and his source have form for geting the facts wrong on climate science (they have both printed retractions this is not in question) and having an editorial bias that doesn't seem to put any value in science.

Ok, lets say Abbott keeps the carbon tax.
Lets also say that big business stays and actually changes the way they do things.
What difference will our carbon tax make to global warming??

To be frank Livers...who *smile*ing cares? It will make our industries more energy efficient and drive the development of new technologies and we will get cheaper energy that is also cleaner. Guess what the rest of the world will do if that happens?
 
interested to know peoples personal mindset in regard to global warming rather than from a political point of view. is anyone here of the from little things big things grow mindset in regard to off-setting their carbon footprints. does anyone think it's such a big scale problem that an individual won't make any difference so let others deal with it. is global warming inevitable. is it all just a lot of hot air.

i feel it's my duty to do as much as possible to reduce my impact in regard to global warming. it might seem futile but if everybody in the world felt and behaved the same way it could make a massive difference.
 
bullus_hit said:
I won't bother responding to the Youtube clip Livers, I prefer to form my opinion based on the work of climatologists, these little red herrings you keep throwing up have little to do with science.

Yes, those heads of Greenpeace admitting to 'emotionalising' issues to suit their own agenda....you don't want to respond to that
signore.gif


If you are interested in forming opinions on the work of climatologists, have you read some of the work of Dr Tim Ball or some of these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

bullus_hit said:
What I find a bit cheeky is your insistence we are making a 'small contribution' yet avoid offering any alternative hypothesis apart from the fact that the world has endured temperature fluctuations in the past. What exactly is 'small' anyway, care to quantify?

I've been through this before on the thread, but there are a range of natural phenomena that can have a bearing on any temperature rise along with man-made causes.
And you ask what is 'small'...well, seeing that there are many people (including scientists and former heads of Greenpeace ;) ) who even question if the earth is indeed even warming up, then small is SMALL!
What percentage then of the Earth warming up do you contribute to man-made causes then?

bullus_hit said:
And for what it's worth, several members of my family are scientists and I've encountered many more through chance meetings. I can emphatically tell you that none have been motivated by money, and most are loathe to even speak to politicians, let alone lobby them for more money. They are also deeply disturbed by the political trend of quantifying all research into dollar terms. Most groundbreaking research is actually non-linear and can veer off in all sorts of obscure directions. Scientists are also bound by the process of peer review which lends itself to a greater level of transparency.

I respect your view but me stating that many scientists and research facilities are looking for grants and money and that it is very competitive, is no different to you casting politicians and successful businesses and being corrupt.
Like I have said, it would be very naive to think that corruptness and agenda-setting isn't on the left side of the political spectrum as much as the right side.

bullus_hit said:
As for your desperate search for absolute facts, I'm not sure how that is possible when we're talking about the future. Science has never been about absolute truths in any case. It's constantly evolving and reinventing itself. This is where I think we differ, I'm perfectly open to new hypotheses about climate change but it's the science I'm interested in. You seem to think it's largely a natural phenomenon so how so? I'm all ears.

I have no problem the likes of Flannery using existing science or models to predict what they think MIGHT happen...but what irks me is that their predictions are lauded as 'the science' and we have Governments making costly decisions based on this, we have the public running scared, and the result becomes an emotional one instead of a scientific one.

To answer your question....I have answered it many times in the past and included all types of charts and graphs from scientific journals and the like.
Feel free to browse through my posts if you like, however there are multitudes of natural phenomena that can raise the Earth's temperature....volcanos, sun flares, earthquakes, Earth's orbit and its position on its axis, meteors, plate tectonics...just to name a few...all have bearings on the climate.
Add a bit of man-made emissions...and we have climate change.
 
Just released the 2013 scientific report into Climate Change by the IPCC. Doesn't make for good reading for those concerned about our environment.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
 
Liverpool said:
Feel free to browse through my posts if you like, however there are multitudes of natural phenomena that can raise the Earth's temperature....volcanos, sun flares, earthquakes, Earth's orbit and its position on its axis, meteors, plate tectonics...just to name a few...all have bearings on the climate.
Add a bit of man-made emissions...and we have climate change.

Volcanos - not significant compared to anthropogenic emissions (US Geological Society)
Sun flares - contentious, but generally considered not to be a factor
Earthquakes - reference please
Orbital forcing - already factored-in and not relevant to current global warming
Meteors (I presume you meant meteorites) - not relevant to current global warming
Plate tectonics - too long a timescale and no recent oceanic circulation changes so not relevant to current global warming

Got any more?
 
rosy23 said:
interested to know peoples personal mindset in regard to global warming rather than from a political point of view. is anyone here of the from little things big things grow mindset in regard to off-setting their carbon footprints. does anyone think it's such a big scale problem that an individual won't make any difference so let others deal with it. is global warming inevitable. is it all just a lot of hot air.

i feel it's my duty to do as much as possible to reduce my impact in regard to global warming. it might seem futile but if everybody in the world felt and behaved the same way it could make a massive difference.

If it weren't possible Rosy then how did individual Victorians taking shorter showers have such a positive impact on our water reserves? Consumption is measured in gigalitres but the government was convinced that the sum of the small contributions of individuals and families would add up to have a significant impact. It did. I don't see why this model wouldn't work with AGW.
 
Liverpool said:
Yes, those heads of Greenpeace admitting to 'emotionalising' issues to suit their own agenda....you don't want to respond to that
signore.gif

Forgive me Livers, I thought you were wise enough to see the difference between robust scientific study and organised activism. There's a big difference between the rantings of fringe groups and the IPCC studies, which have quite possibly been the most scrutinised documents in the history of science. If you have an issue with some of the contents then lay your cards on the table, I'm still waiting for evidence to back-up your claim humans are making a 'minimal' impact.

Furthermore, continually dragging this argument down to an issue of right versus left is creating artificial boundaries. As has been mentioned adnauseum, most of Europe are moving towards a carbon free platform, David Cameron has been exceptionally proactive on the issue and he's a conservative. This has been a long tradition with conservatives in Britain, many who see early adoption of renewables as a golden goose.

Liverpool said:
I've been through this before on the thread, but there are a range of natural phenomena that can have a bearing on any temperature rise along with man-made causes.
And you ask what is 'small'...well, seeing that there are many people (including scientists and former heads of Greenpeace ;) ) who even question if the earth is indeed even warming up, then small is SMALL!
What percentage then of the Earth warming up do you contribute to man-made causes then?

The earth has heated up by 0.89 degrees since 1901, roughly coinciding with the industrial revolution. The bell curve illustrating the distribution of temperatures is gradually moving to the right, indicating we're experiencing more hot extremes and fewer colder extremes. Analysis of the ice cores at the poles also indicates a strong link between CO2 and prehistoric climate change. Not to mention the unprecedented deforestation we're currently experiencing, a critical mechanism for absorbing CO2 and naturally cooling the planet.

As for the here and now, ocean surface temperatures are heating up and becoming more acidified and salinity levels continue to reduce. This could cause a shutdown of oceanic currents leading to a big freeze in Europe and extreme heatwaves in Africa & Australia. Record temperatures are constantly being recorded all over the planet (since the inception of thermometer readings) and satellite data has backed this up. The impact of rising temperatures is also being amplified by urbanisation, a by-product of fewer trees and more heat absorbing building materials.

Liverpool said:
To answer your question....I have answered it many times in the past and included all types of charts and graphs from scientific journals and the like.
Feel free to browse through my posts if you like, however there are multitudes of natural phenomena that can raise the Earth's temperature....volcanos, sun flares, earthquakes, Earth's orbit and its position on its axis, meteors, plate tectonics...just to name a few...all have bearings on the climate.
Add a bit of man-made emissions...and we have climate change.

All these natural phenomenon have been categorically dismissed as the primary driver of climate change. They have some impact but they have largely been intermittent and out of sync with the general trend of of rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

At the moment the IPCC is recommending a course of action which will 'limit' temperature increases to 4 degrees. This in itself must be reason for concern as we don't yet understand the implication of methane in the ice cores being released and being a catalyst for runaway climate change. Not to mention the devastating effect even marginal increases will have on biodiversity, particularly marine life.

In the end Livers, I'm resigned to the fact that no amount of information will alter your mind, and you'll probably just continuing sourcing the information that suits your agenda. You will probably flip flop from idea to idea, hoping that the occasional flawed study or media exaggeration will distract people from a planet that is irrefutably changing. And you will undoubtedly continue to uphold the pretense that this is a battle between the tree hugging socialists and the born to rule capitalists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. But if you honestly believe climate change is crap, then good luck to you, I hope you've got a good Fujitsu.
 
Liverpool said:
By searching for profits or continual growth or further investments...call it what you will, evolution is a natural progression. It isn't about Government regulaton.

So of course you must agree that all governments globally should immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuels - $1.9 trillion! annually - 2.5% of global GDP.
 
There seem to be quite a few "quite likely" and "highly likely" etc in the IPCC report
Are there any "proven" results? Or is it more the scientists can't attribute to the exact causation?
I haven't had time as yet to read through the whole report but will endeavor to do so to find some enlightenment.

Just a query if someone can help out. (I may have asked this previously, but I'm not sure if it was answered or I even asked)
If as the scientists/experts attribute some cause of global warming/climate change to human involvement, what is the main cause ie fossil fuels for automobiles or more so, coal burning power stations or land clearing?
 
KnightersRevenge said:
To be frank Livers...who *smile*ing cares? It will make our industries more energy efficient and drive the development of new technologies and we will get cheaper energy that is also cleaner. Guess what the rest of the world will do if that happens?

Who cares, you say??? :eek:

Isn't that the main idea of the carbon tax...to drive change and hence reverse or at least slow global climate change???
 
willo said:
There seem to be quite a few "quite likely" and "highly likely" etc in the IPCC report
Are there any "proven" results? Or is it more the scientists can't attribute to the exact causation?
I haven't had time as yet to read through the whole report but will endeavor to do so to find some enlightenment.

Just a query if someone can help out. (I may have asked this previously, but I'm not sure if it was answered or I even asked)
If as the scientists/experts attribute some cause of global warming/climate change to human involvement, what is the main cause ie fossil fuels for automobiles or more so, coal burning power stations or land clearing?

Based on global data taken in 2005, electricity & heat generation accounts for roughly a quarter of all emissions, the other major culprits are industry at 14%, transportation 14%, agriculture 13%, land use change 12% and fuel combustion at 8%.
 
Azza said:
Volcanos - not significant compared to anthropogenic emissions (US Geological Society)

Example:

LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.

TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.

KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.

Azza said:
Sun flares - contentious, but generally considered not to be a factor

Climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.
When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.

Azza said:
Earthquakes - reference please

http://www.livescience.com/38488-earthquakes-trigger-methane-release.html

http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/air-clean-up/16/breaking_news/climate_change_could_be_affected_by_earthquakes/26370/

Azza said:
Orbital forcing - already factored-in and not relevant to current global warming

Of orbits and ice ages
Researcher confirms that axis shifts help to propel temperature changes
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/01/of-orbits-and-ice-ages/

Azza said:
Meteors (I presume you meant meteorites) - not relevant to current global warming

Comets also...

http://spaceinfo.com.au/2010/04/21/comet-crash-caused-climate-change/

...and how this is relevant to now is that a comet crashing and changing the 'natural cycle' of weather and temperature changes then has a domino effect on what happens over the years. A change in land formations, oceans, and interrupting a "warming cycle" with a sudden temperature drop has to have influence on future weather patterns.


Now I think the whole scenario is more complicated than the "its manmade gases" or "its natural what is happening".......I think what we are witnessing is a slow rise in Earth's temperatures caused by many variables, not one reason alone.

So I'm not a sceptic/denier...but I certainly aren't on the blaming the human race bandwagon either.
 
Tigers of Old said:
Just released the 2013 scientific report into Climate Change by the IPCC. Doesn't make for good reading for those concerned about our environment.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

That's what these groups specialise in, causing anxiety. Many people will vote in favour of anything 'green' to unburden their consciences.

The greenies can stick their "economic" shower heads with their water jets like so many needles in your back. I'll enjoy my shower, use what I want and pay for it, thank you.
 
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
That's what these groups specialise in, causing anxiety. Many people will vote in favour of anything 'green' to unburden their consciences.

The greenies can stick their "economic" shower heads with their water jets like so many needles in your back. I'll enjoy my shower, use what I want and pay for it, thank you.

Ah yeah.

So was that your attitude when our dams were at 30% capacity? Or is it only your attitude now that are at 80%? What if they should drop to 10%?

Would you still go out and water your garden if they were at 10%? After all, it's your garden, you can use what you want and just pay for it right?
 
bullus_hit said:
Forgive me Livers, I thought you were wise enough to see the difference between robust scientific study and organised activism.

Unfortunately, scientific studies are being skewed to suit agendas, mainly by these organised activists and anyone who simply questions them are condemned as 'sceptics' or 'deniers'.
You are either in their camp and fully supportive of the human race being 100% at fault for any rise in temperature...or you are against science.

As I have said before....if the science is so irrefutable, then why do we see such "emotionalising" of the issue? Why not let facts and science speak for itself?

bullus_hit said:
If you have an issue with some of the contents then lay your cards on the table, I'm still waiting for evidence to back-up your claim humans are making a 'minimal' impact.

I've told you I have posted many graphs, charts, articles, etc talking about this. I am not going to sit here and "research" it all again.
In my previous post, I mentioned a number of natural phenomena that has proven to have impacts on climate change, some very suddenly and some over a period of time.
I am not totally dismissing man-made intervention as one of the cogs in the wheel....I am just not willing to simply dismiss other alternatives which science and scientists have also proven to have bearings on our climate.

bullus_hit said:
The earth has heated up by 0.89 degrees since 1901, roughly coinciding with the industrial revolution. The bell curve illustrating the distribution of temperatures is gradually moving to the right, indicating we're experiencing more hot extremes and fewer colder extremes. Analysis of the ice cores at the poles also indicates a strong link between CO2 and prehistoric climate change. Not to mention the unprecedented deforestation we're currently experiencing, a critical mechanism for absorbing CO2 and naturally cooling the planet.

The IPCC also said that the last 15 years, temperatures rising have plateaued and slowed...is that part of the bell curve also?

What is the reason for this then??

bullus_hit said:
And you will undoubtedly continue to uphold the pretense that this is a battle between the tree hugging socialists and the born to rule capitalists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I think I am somewhere in between to be honest.
 
antman said:
Ah yeah.

So was that your attitude when our dams were at 30% capacity? Or is it only your attitude now that are at 80%? What if they should drop to 10%?

Would you still go out and water your garden if they were at 10%? After all, it's your garden, you can use what you want and just pay for it right?
D. Sally-Nation mate, were paying for it anyway.
 
billyb#40 said:
D. Sally-Nation mate, were paying for it anyway.

Great example, thanks billyb. We were running low on water so the pollies panicked and now we are all paying for a white elephant facility that is expensive and inefficient. If we'd all used low flow shower heads and watered the garden less we would have saved money on water bills and they wouldn't have built the f#cker, saving us around $24 billion in taxes and ridiculous contracts with AquaSure - which is a consortium of Theiss, Macquarie Capital etc etc

But no, it's my water and I'll use as much as I want, I'm paying for it right billy? I don't mind making the big corporates richer and wasting my water and my money at the same time. Good for the economy innit.
 
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
That's what these groups specialise in, causing anxiety. Many people will vote in favour of anything 'green' to unburden their consciences.

According to some like Nicholas Stern, the IPCC have been deliberately underestimating the impacts of rising temperatures to avoid labelled alarmist. But hey, what would he know, he's just a part of the great big green conspiracy intent on destroying capitalism.

Just out of curiosity, how comfortable are you with a projected 4 degree increase?
 
bullus_hit said:
Based on global data taken in 2005, electricity & heat generation accounts for roughly a quarter of all emissions, the other major culprits are industry at 14%, transportation 14%, agriculture 13%, land use change 12% and fuel combustion at 8%.

Thanks for that info Bully.