Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › Re: Climate Science

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33

Send Topic

Print

Re: Climate Science (Read 80981 times)

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #120 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:18pm

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:14pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 6:27pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 6:08pm:

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:42pm:

The clearing of tropical rainforests is the only underlying cause of the climate crisis that stems directly from population growth.

China's population is falling but its emissions are increasing.

There are always rules & exceptions!

Land clearing is certainly one aspect of what has been/is happening that can be sourced back to Population increase, but it is not the only one and land clearing also interacts with other issues, such as the usage of Energy (Oil & other fossil fuels), both in Growth & decline, which in turn interacts with Human Population Growth & Decline.

Whilst China's Population is not in decline, just yet, the rate of Growth has slowed considerably and is continuing to do so. It may start to actually decline sometime in the next 20 years or so?

However, they (the Chinese) had other issues influencing the Economic situation for many years, namely the Communist Party & doctrine, which they started to peel away from, about the time that the Russian Wall came crashing down.

Whether we like, agree or disagree with the Communist doctrine, it may have inadvertently saved us & our system, from an earlier collapse, purely by "virtue" of the fact that they were there and in power for some 90 years in the case of Russia & 60 years in the case of China.

If both of these powers had gone to "Capitalism" (the Dark Side ?) instead of Communism, then we may well have hit the Economic, Population & Energy Wall, 20 years earlier.

Can you imagine what effects that their combined Population of over 1.5 Billion, would already have had, after having been striving for the American dream of Consuming everything in sight & out of sight, for say the last fifty years, instead of just the last 20 years.

Oil & in fact, all forms of Energy would already have been in terminal decline for some years, reversing the Food & Population Growth rates, the Greatest Depression would already be in full swing, but the GHG emission rates would also be in a long term decline, as the Global Economy trends downward.

Everything, really is inter-connected, the Gaia principle is alive & well, stitting next to the Butterfly Effect, but where it will all lead, in the longer term particularly, is far from certain!

Good god, do you mean YOU actually believe THAT????

Which part do you have a problem with Gizmo and why?

That said, I think I already have a fair idea!

You seriously believe that Communism is 'better' for the environment than 'Capitalism'?????

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #121 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:57pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:18pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:14pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 6:27pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 6:08pm:

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:42pm:

The clearing of tropical rainforests is the only underlying cause of the climate crisis that stems directly from population growth.

China's population is falling but its emissions are increasing.

There are always rules & exceptions!

Land clearing is certainly one aspect of what has been/is happening that can be sourced back to Population increase, but it is not the only one and land clearing also interacts with other issues, such as the usage of Energy (Oil & other fossil fuels), both in Growth & decline, which in turn interacts with Human Population Growth & Decline.

Whilst China's Population is not in decline, just yet, the rate of Growth has slowed considerably and is continuing to do so. It may start to actually decline sometime in the next 20 years or so?

However, they (the Chinese) had other issues influencing the Economic situation for many years, namely the Communist Party & doctrine, which they started to peel away from, about the time that the Russian Wall came crashing down.

Whether we like, agree or disagree with the Communist doctrine, it may have inadvertently saved us & our system, from an earlier collapse, purely by "virtue" of the fact that they were there and in power for some 90 years in the case of Russia & 60 years in the case of China.

If both of these powers had gone to "Capitalism" (the Dark Side ?) instead of Communism, then we may well have hit the Economic, Population & Energy Wall, 20 years earlier.

Can you imagine what effects that their combined Population of over 1.5 Billion, would already have had, after having been striving for the American dream of Consuming everything in sight & out of sight, for say the last fifty years, instead of just the last 20 years.

Oil & in fact, all forms of Energy would already have been in terminal decline for some years, reversing the Food & Population Growth rates, the Greatest Depression would already be in full swing, but the GHG emission rates would also be in a long term decline, as the Global Economy trends downward.

Everything, really is inter-connected, the Gaia principle is alive & well, stitting next to the Butterfly Effect, but where it will all lead, in the longer term particularly, is far from certain!

Good god, do you mean YOU actually believe THAT????

Which part do you have a problem with Gizmo and why?

That said, I think I already have a fair idea!

You seriously believe that Communism is 'better' for the environment than 'Capitalism'?????

Was that what I said?

Go back & have a look at what I said, then think about it!

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #122 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 9:12pm

"Whether we like, agree or disagree with the Communist doctrine, it may have inadvertently saved us & our system, from an earlier collapse, purely by "virtue" of the fact that they were there and in power for some 90 years in the case of Russia & 60 years in the case of China.

If both of these powers had gone to "Capitalism" (the Dark Side ?) instead of Communism, then we may well have hit the Economic, Population & Energy Wall, 20 years earlier."

Well YES...that does in fact seem to be what you said....

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #123 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 10:01pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 9:12pm:

"Whether we like, agree or disagree with the Communist doctrine, it may have inadvertently saved us & our system, from an earlier collapse, purely by "virtue" of the fact that they were there and in power for some 90 years in the case of Russia & 60 years in the case of China.

If both of these powers had gone to "Capitalism" (the Dark Side ?) instead of Communism, then we may well have hit the Economic, Population & Energy Wall, 20 years earlier."

Well YES...that does in fact seem to be what you said....

Actually, what I did say was -
Quote:

Whether we like, agree or disagree with the Communist doctrine, it may have inadvertently saved us & our system, from an earlier collapse, purely by "virtue" of the fact that they were there and in power for some 90 years in the case of Russia & 60 years in the case of China.

If both of these powers had gone to "Capitalism" (the Dark Side ?) instead of Communism, then we may well have hit the Economic, Population & Energy Wall, 20 years earlier.

Can you imagine what effects that their combined Population of over 1.5 Billion, would already have had, after having been striving for the American dream of Consuming everything in sight & out of sight, for say the last fifty years, instead of just the last 20 years.

Oil & in fact, all forms of Energy would already have been in terminal decline for some years, reversing the Food & Population Growth rates, the Greatest Depression would already be in full swing, but the GHG emission rates would also be in a long term decline, as the Global Economy trends downward.

Which means, whatever we may think of Communism, the fact that both China & Russia went to Communism & not Capitalism, actually meant that some 1.5 bIllion people delayed consuming like 300 Million Amercians, by 60-90 years.

If those Chinese & Russians had gone to Capitalism, whatever we may think of it, then the addition Consumption of another 1.5 Billion US style consumers, would have seen the current problems brought about because of limits in essential Resources and declines in Energy sources, such as Oil and shortly Gas & Coal, would have been brought forward by 20 years or more.

The result being that the worlds Greatest Depression would already be in full swing, but as a quirk on how inter-connected things are, the GHG emission rates would also be in a long term decline, as the Global Economy trends downward and therefore the climate issues may not have been so dramatic.

I hope that clarifies that I am not a closet Communist, but nor am I a supporter of Capitalism in its current format!

Btw, just to clarify my Political leanings, I have none, I have an even handed approach to Politicians, I dislike them all!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #124 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 8:36am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:39pm:

In truth...the LAST time the Co2 levels were similar to what they are now was just before the last 'true glaciation'....Icing of the earth...
Before the last freezing event( i.e Massive Ice sheets covering Europe and America)...The Pliocene Freezing etc...

Well it's a question of semantics, and I'm not going to waste time arguing about semantics. If you look at the graph that showed the last 5 million years of global climate, you'll see the gradual reduction of CO2 and the gradual reduction of global temperature.

This gradual trend took millions of years. If you look at the last 60 years or so, we've gone from about 300ppm to about 400ppm CO2 in what is the geological equivalent of a blink of an eye.

That is what's so unprecedented.

« Last Edit: Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 8:43am by muso »

co2_data_mlo.jpg (83 KB | 50 )

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #125 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 9:45am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:18pm:

You seriously believe that Communism is 'better' for the environment than 'Capitalism'?????

It's not really anything about Communism or Capitalism. The communists held back civilisation and sent some states into spiralling bankrupcy. That much is not in dispute.

It's more to do with generating energy from fossil fuels, whether it's energy for powering mobile transport or electricity generation.

Hydro-electric generation, nuclear generation, solar, wind and geothermal energy produces less greenhouse gases than coal or oil fired generation. THe last time I checked, 1kWhr of electricity from geothermal energy can do the same as 1kWhr of fossil fuel generated electricity.

Progressing to renewables doesn't meant that we're all going to start waving red flags. Renewables can support strong economic growth just as readily as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels don't come with some magic economic pudding.

The economic system is not what's in dispute here.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #126 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 12:35pm

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 9:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:18pm:

You seriously believe that Communism is 'better' for the environment than 'Capitalism'?????

It's not really anything about Communism or Capitalism. The communists held back civilisation and sent some states into spiralling bankrupcy. That much is not in dispute.

It's more to do with generating energy from fossil fuels, whether it's energy for powering mobile transport or electricity generation.

Hydro-electric generation, nuclear generation, solar, wind and geothermal energy produces less greenhouse gases than coal or oil fired generation. THe last time I checked, 1kWhr of electricity from geothermal energy can do the same as 1kWhr of fossil fuel generated electricity.

Progressing to renewables doesn't meant that we're all going to start waving red flags. Renewables can support strong economic growth just as readily as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels don't come with some magic economic pudding.

The economic system is not what's in dispute here.

That's what I meant....

If the Communist states had turned Capitalist even 30 or 40 years ago, it would have made very little difference to fuel comsuption....It may have even reduced the fossil fuel usage in those countries...

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #127 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 2:02pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:45pm:

And yes, I admit that the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP 'may' have been Northern Hemisphere only events....

However, given the lack of written records for the Southern Hemisphere in those times.....I wouldn't be prepared to 'bet the house' on it....

It's a bit stronger than 'may have' in light of all the studies conducted. They didn't have written records of temperature in the Northern Hemisphere either

It's all based on proxies. I mean Eric the Red saying "It's bloody hot" doesn't count as a temperature measurement.

Anyway - what point are you trying to make? There were episodes in the dim and distant past when temperatures were higher and atmospheric CO2 levels were higher too. There exists a kind of equilibrium between temperature and CO2 as I explained in the sticky notes.

It's also well known that there were coconuts growing in England during the Eocene.

There were also brief episodes where CO2 and temperature levels spiked as they have done in the last 60 years, but the causes were fairly cataclysmic in each case. The consequences were cataclysmic too.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #128 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 2:13pm

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 2:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:45pm:

And yes, I admit that the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP 'may' have been Northern Hemisphere only events....

However, given the lack of written records for the Southern Hemisphere in those times.....I wouldn't be prepared to 'bet the house' on it....

It's a bit stronger than 'may have' in light of all the studies conducted. They didn't have written records of temperature in the Northern Hemisphere either

It's all based on proxies. I mean Eric the Red saying "It's bloody hot" doesn't count as a temperature measurement.

Anyway - what point are you trying to make? There were episodes in the dim and distant past when temperatures were higher and atmospheric CO2 levels were higher too. There exists a kind of equilibrium between temperature and CO2 as I explained in the sticky notes.

It's also well known that there were coconuts growing in England during the Eocene.

There were also brief episodes where CO2 and temperature levels spiked as they have done in the last 60 years, but the causes were fairly cataclysmic in each case. The consequences were cataclysmic too.

Well yes they actually did have written records in the Northern Hemisphere......Erik the Red may not have said 'It's bloody hot', but there are written histories of the Vikings settling in Greenland and growing grain crops..

In the Southern Hemisphere, on the other hand, apart from Mayan, Aztec and Incan writings....(which aren't all that easy to understand) the Australian Aboriginals used 'oral' histories, as did the Africans and most of the Asian countries, like Indonesia etc...

So while there is no evidence of unusually warm temperatures...there is also no evidence that it wasn't 'unusually warm'....

My point is that it cannot be 100% ascertained that the MWP didn't cover more of the planet than just Northern Europe....

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #129 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 2:13pm:

Well yes they actually did have written records in the Northern Hemisphere......Erik the Red may not have said 'It's bloody hot', but there are written histories of the Vikings settling in Greenland and growing grain crops..

In the Southern Hemisphere, on the other hand, apart from Mayan, Aztec and Incan writings....(which aren't all that easy to understand) the Australian Aboriginals used 'oral' histories, as did the Africans and most of the Asian countries, like Indonesia etc...

So while there is no evidence of unusually warm temperatures...there is also no evidence that it wasn't 'unusually warm'....

My point is that it cannot be 100% ascertained that the MWP didn't cover more of the planet than just Northern Europe....

Will you settle for 99%? There are ten separate studies in the graph in reply 110 and a new study referenced in the link which indicated that the Southern Hemisphere was in fact slightly cooler during that period. (excerpt below)

- and apart from the proxy temperature studies, there have been numerous plant pollen studies that back this up.

- but the question remains - what point were you trying to make anyway?

Quote:

This pressure difference in turn revealed that the medieval period must have experienced a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent.

The idea to use growth rings to work out past climate change is not new, but Trouet's team is the first to look back beyond 1400 in the European record. They found that the strongly positive NAO lasted for about 350 years from 1050 to 1400.

By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent.

"It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal," says Trouet.

« Last Edit: Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:14pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #130 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:15pm

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 2:13pm:

Well yes they actually did have written records in the Northern Hemisphere......Erik the Red may not have said 'It's bloody hot', but there are written histories of the Vikings settling in Greenland and growing grain crops..

In the Southern Hemisphere, on the other hand, apart from Mayan, Aztec and Incan writings....(which aren't all that easy to understand) the Australian Aboriginals used 'oral' histories, as did the Africans and most of the Asian countries, like Indonesia etc...

So while there is no evidence of unusually warm temperatures...there is also no evidence that it wasn't 'unusually warm'....

My point is that it cannot be 100% ascertained that the MWP didn't cover more of the planet than just Northern Europe....

Will you settle for 99%? There are ten separate studies in the graph in reply 110 and a new study referenced in the link which indicated that the Southern Hemisphere was in fact slightly cooler during that period.

- and apart from the proxy temperature studies, there have been numerous plant pollen studies that back this up.

- but the question is - what point are you making anyway?

Quote:

This pressure difference in turn revealed that the medieval period must have experienced a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent.

The idea to use growth rings to work out past climate change is not new, but Trouet's team is the first to look back beyond 1400 in the European record. They found that the strongly positive NAO lasted for about 350 years from 1050 to 1400.

By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent.

"It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal," says Trouet.

Gee, what point am I making??

Could it be that the 'current Global Warming'...May not be Global....since none of the previous ones have been, what makes anyone think THIS one will be????

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #131 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:13pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:15pm:

Gee, what point am I making??

Could it be that the 'current Global Warming'...May not be Global....since none of the previous ones have been, what makes anyone think THIS one will be????

Well that's a new one

Where have you been in the last 20 years? Read the sticky thread and if there is something you want to discuss, bring it up.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #132 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:18pm

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:15pm:

Gee, what point am I making??

Could it be that the 'current Global Warming'...May not be Global....since none of the previous ones have been, what makes anyone think THIS one will be????

Well that's a new one

Where have you been in the last 20 years? Read the sticky thread and if there is something you want to discuss, bring it up.

Geese muso, where have you been???
The disbelieve of AGW has been around for years.....
NOT GW, even the most rabid anti-AGW people don't argue that the World is warming....it's just the CAUSE that is disputed....

ANd why is the 'sticky' so special???

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #133 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:25pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:18pm:

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 5:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:15pm:

Gee, what point am I making??

Could it be that the 'current Global Warming'...May not be Global....since none of the previous ones have been, what makes anyone think THIS one will be????

Well that's a new one

Where have you been in the last 20 years? Read the sticky thread and if there is something you want to discuss, bring it up.

Geese muso, where have you been???
The disbelieve of AGW has been around for years.....
NOT GW, even the most rabid anti-AGW people don't argue that the World is warming....

Ever hear "Global Warming stopped in 1998"?

Believe me, it's not just one argument. Read your PM.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #134 - Aug 4^th, 2010 at 4:20am

How on earth do these Denialists accept the bunkum from dodgy sources at face value, but challenge the veracity of peer reviewed scientific studies as unreliable?

Almost to a man, these Denialists are right wing conservatives, and I fear they have wedded themselves to their positions as some sort of ideological attachment.
Every person that claims ther is a scientific conspiracy, can be immediately discounted as a flamin ratbag, end of story.
Stick them in a corner to discuss the 9/11 twaddle as well.

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge