-
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
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
I am no climatologist, but given the atmosphere on Mars is as useful as underwear on an 18 year old girl at schoolies, and there are no seas on Mars (which have a significant influence on weather events on earth) does this not make the comparison irrelevant?
Bit like saying I should be worried about running my car engine for more that 30 minutes, because my iron keeps overheating when it does.
Bit like saying I should be worried about running my car engine for more that 30 minutes, because my iron keeps overheating when it does.
Liverpool said:
Thanks mate - you've finally managed to google something that makes some sense rather than rabbitting on about irrelevancies like climate change on Mars, and during the deglaciation. If you keep up your research and reading, I might even have to retract my statement about your ignorance.
In response to the article, I agree 100% that there's doubt on the issue. But I prefer to err on the side of caution and the majority. Also, there's the fact that fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, so we might as well start looking at replacements rather than waiting while fuel prices get higher and higher and lead to political instability and wars. AND for me those replacements should be as safe as possible.
As to the sensationalist media, it's a huge issue on all sorts of counts. It's the main reason politicians make bad decisions that cause many problems. The thing is, before the media managed to find a senstaionlist angle, the issue of global warning got absolutely no media traction at all. No one knew about it, so there wasn't even a political debate on whether action should be taken or not.
For me the media issue is obviously one of consumer demand. It's like politicians -we get the ones we deserve. I can only think the answer comes back to schooling kids to develop more critical thinking, so people look into issues in more depth rather than taken the 2 minute grab on Today Tonight as the start and end of any story. I tried to avoid shows like that because I catch myself getting caught-up in their emotive spin.
With a bit luck the web will help by providing more easily accessable in-depth more information, as well as debate. The trouble is, people sometimes take things out of context, or don't understand that there are different levels of knowledge behind the information that's available.
Disco08 said:
It is also interesting to note Disco...that 2 of the official expert reviewers to the IPCC report on greenhouse gases (Vincent Gray and Madhav Khandekar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)
.....are some of the signatories to this open letter to the UN.
Therefore, if all the talk from yourself and Azza saying that the people behind the IPCC reports are correct, then surely you should also take notice of what is in this open letter, co-signed by 2 of the same people behind the IPCC report?
Azza said:Thanks mate - you've finally managed to google something that makes some sense rather than rabbitting on about irrelevancies like climate change on Mars, and during the deglaciation. If you keep up your research and reading, I might even have to retract my statement about your ignorance.
It was just beautiful timing and a coincidence that this open letter only came about last week....and pretty much sums up what I have been 'rabbiting on about' on this thread for a while now....so it wasn't anything to do about me reading more or researching more.
Maybe I am not as ignorant as you think...
Liverpool said:It was just beautiful timing and a coincidence that this open letter only came about last week....and pretty much sums up what I have been 'rabbiting on about' on this thread for a while now....so it wasn't anything to do about me reading more or researching more.
Maybe I am not as ignorant as you think...
Nope - you are. Your posts indicated that you had no grasp of the natural climate system; how researchers work to eliminate options (in this case the natural vs the human); how research is funded and whether it can be influenced by pressure groups; the standard of research and how it is maintained through peer review and journalistic standards).
Liverpool said:
Absolutely. I hope this gets wider coverage so the IPCC is forced to respond. As it stands now it's very hard to know who's telling the truth. One thing that is a little strange about the letter is its focus on the financial side of the argument rather than the scientific. I'd like to see them address the points purely on the science.
You may have been right in that more scientists are now casting doubt on global warming theory but I think we can put to bed your theory that the earth getting hotter is going to benefit anyone.
Azza said:
Thats all true from my perspective.
My theory on whole Climate change/polution problem goes something like thus:
1) As in most problems it's best to get 'keep it simple stupid.'People spend all there time arguing about wether global warming is man made,and how much is man made, and so forth; and forget to some degree on how best try to solve it.
It's clearly obvious man is pumping too much sh!t into the air,whether its directly causing some or all of global warming is ultimately irrelevant.Just accept we can't keep burining fossil fuels like we have the last couple of 100 years and get on with it.
2)One of the main problems is oil.But ultimately this is a problem that will solve itself.We have already approached or are approaching peak oil.Car use is increasing incessantly,primarily driven by China and India's economic expansion and prosperity.Oil is going to run out in 30 or 40 years whether we like it or not.So man will be forced to solve that problem on mere economics alone.
3)The big problem is burning of coal to generate electricity.Unlike Oil theres sh!tloads of coal.100's of years worth.I think Yallourn has a proven resource of something like 300 years worth alone.Therefore the 'big ticket item' in my view and where the majourity of funds,research and focus should be on this.1st world countries like Australia,U.S and Western Europe must bare most of the burden for burden for research and development of alternative sources of electricity generation.China aren't goibng to do it,there just staggering into the 20th centrury(industrially revolution wise)
4) So instead of *smile*ing around with endless conferences and bickering about wether there is even a problem like this Bali *smile* just bloody concentrate government funding on Hot rocks development,solar,wind,wave and making nuclear safe as it could possibly be.
I read somewhere that that ridiculous Bali junket is going to end up costing 70 million tax payers dollars.FFS sake just send and email saying "yeh heres our signature" and spend the 70million on more R&D. CSIRO could've done sh!tloads with that money.
The problem doesn't even seem that difficult to me.Just bite the bullet,spend the money and bloody fix it.
As a principle I think it sounds good as a measure to lower emissions but I don't know enough about issues like waste disposal. I've seen a doco on depleted uranium (DU) which is scary stuff and I think there's a fair argument that keeping uranium in the ground is a good thing whether it's to be used for power or weapons or whatever.
As far as Australia goes I can't see why we don't have vast wind and tide farms as well as far more solar energy use.
As far as Australia goes I can't see why we don't have vast wind and tide farms as well as far more solar energy use.
The problem with wind and solar etc is while they're a good -and should be used and used more expansively- they will never provide base load power.
Theres only 2 methods other than coal AFAIK.Nuclear and Hot rocks technology.And hot rocks sites are located too far from major cities.
That only leaves nuclear for at least some generation.I can't see any other way around.
The coal emition sequestration(clean coal) is the stupidest idea I've ever seen.
Theres only 2 methods other than coal AFAIK.Nuclear and Hot rocks technology.And hot rocks sites are located too far from major cities.
That only leaves nuclear for at least some generation.I can't see any other way around.
The coal emition sequestration(clean coal) is the stupidest idea I've ever seen.
evo said:
Some years ago I would have given a resounding YES based on:
- problems of pollution at the mine sites
- problems of instability of reactors
- issues of waste disposal
- problems with having uranium being traded on world markets and risk it could end up in weapons
I've softened a bit on nuclear power now, because of improvements in reactor technology. But the other factors are still issues for me, as well as doing things like building reactors in highly geologically unstable areas like the Indonesian archipelago!
[/list]
evo said:
Yeah, the storage thing is the majpr problem. Geothermal particularly, but tide, wind and wave power could help. An ex-Gas and Fuel bloke was telling me the other day of a process where hydrogen could be produced using solar power, transported by pipeline, then converted to water with release of energy. This seems likely to fix some of the problem too, although I don't know about whether it could provide the sacle of power needed. There must be other similar options going around too.
