Interesting perspective. Please elaborate.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III
- Thread starter Dan26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Interesting perspective. Please elaborate.
- Sep 18, 2013
- 17,752
- 11,820
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
No, nuclear war is another. Which is another problem brought to this world by nuts who think like you do. Brought to us by the same nuts who brought us global warming. The same nuts who try and say only they can save us.
Only nuts don't get this.
Not sure I get where you are coming from. Are you against science as a whole or just some of it?
I'm a massive advocate of green solutions and against continued use of fossil fuels. However, I also consider progress and learning to be valuable things.
Best case is that people can still do new things, but be greener while doing them. The ultimate solution to a future where we have clean energy and lots of it without destroying lakes and rivers with hydro, or producing large numbers of solar and wind plants could be fusion power which comes from the same science as the hydrogen bomb.
So what are you advocating exactly? All scientists or explorers are nuts?
I'm a massive advocate of green solutions and against continued use of fossil fuels. However, I also consider progress and learning to be valuable things.
Best case is that people can still do new things, but be greener while doing them. The ultimate solution to a future where we have clean energy and lots of it without destroying lakes and rivers with hydro, or producing large numbers of solar and wind plants could be fusion power which comes from the same science as the hydrogen bomb.
So what are you advocating exactly? All scientists or explorers are nuts?
. We might want to hone the control and landing systems of our really fast space craft at some stage too.
Germany’s Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, has indicated that the country will abandon its commitment to reducing CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2020, from a 1990 base level. In doing so he has won the ongoing clash with his own environmental minister Barbara Hendricks over energy policy, telling her that he will tolerate no further resistance to the change of direction, according to Der Speigel.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
An interesting section from bloomberg talking about Chinese Agreement with the US last week and what it actually means in terms of deliverable:
In his agreement last week with President Barack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and turn to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy.
China, which does nothing in small doses, will need about 1,000 nuclear reactors, 500,000 wind turbines or 50,000 solar farms as it takes up the fight against climate change.
Chinese President Xi Jinping agreement last week with President Barack Obama requires a radical environmental and economic makeover. Xi’s commitment to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and turn to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy comes with a price tag of $2 trillion.
The pledge would require China to produce either 67 times more nuclear energy than the country is forecast to have at the end of 2014, 30 times more solar or nine times more wind power. That almost equals the non-fossil fuel energy of the entire U.S. generating capacity today. China’s program holds the potential of producing vast riches for nuclear, solar and wind companies that get in on the action.
“China is in the midst of a period of transition, and that calls for a revolution in energy production and consumption, which will to a large extent depend on new energy,” Liang Zhipeng, deputy director of the new energy and renewable energy department under the National Energy Administration, said at a conference in Wuxi outside of Shanghai this month. “Our environment is facing pressure and we must develop clean energy.”
In his agreement last week with President Barack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and turn to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy.
China, which does nothing in small doses, will need about 1,000 nuclear reactors, 500,000 wind turbines or 50,000 solar farms as it takes up the fight against climate change.
Chinese President Xi Jinping agreement last week with President Barack Obama requires a radical environmental and economic makeover. Xi’s commitment to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and turn to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy comes with a price tag of $2 trillion.
The pledge would require China to produce either 67 times more nuclear energy than the country is forecast to have at the end of 2014, 30 times more solar or nine times more wind power. That almost equals the non-fossil fuel energy of the entire U.S. generating capacity today. China’s program holds the potential of producing vast riches for nuclear, solar and wind companies that get in on the action.
“China is in the midst of a period of transition, and that calls for a revolution in energy production and consumption, which will to a large extent depend on new energy,” Liang Zhipeng, deputy director of the new energy and renewable energy department under the National Energy Administration, said at a conference in Wuxi outside of Shanghai this month. “Our environment is facing pressure and we must develop clean energy.”
Hottest year on record, but there's been no warming for 16/17/18 years or whatever.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...as-climate-talks-heat-up/ar-BBgigXP?ocid=iehp
No scientific evidence, apart from the measurements and evidence.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...as-climate-talks-heat-up/ar-BBgigXP?ocid=iehp
No scientific evidence, apart from the measurements and evidence.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm shocked. A conference based on extending the gravy train finds evidence in support of keeping the gravy train going.
Tell me why the models the scares are based on haven't been able to predict the past 20 years.
Sure, the climate is changing and for the most part warming, as it has since the little ice age ended a few hundred years back. It's the scare campaign as to why that is happening that doesn't add up.
- Banned
- #3,735
So you have no counter evidence, to refute the data provided
B-b-b-b-but dem scientists are lyin'
- Banned
- #3,737
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
yep both right from what I have read, we have not warmed in 16-18 years but we are warmer than 1961-1990 averages
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
look at the time references
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm not saying it's not warmer. I'm saying it's not the nightmare scenario we keep getting warned about.
You know, the one all the models tell us is happening, even though the actual temperature hasn't played ball for almost 2 decades.
Lousy thousand-aires. Whooping it up while the rest of us have to work.
Are you up for a great big brave statement like: I am saying that it IS getting warmer?
If so, do you agree all those gravy-train scientists might have been on the right track after all, you know, like with their predicting things are going to get warmer?
I do not know what nightmare scenario you keep getting warned about. The nightmare scenario I keep getting warned about is that unless we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to prevent the Earth from warming 2C humanity is in for quite a world of pain. In other words the little bit of warming now experienced is just a taster for the nightmare we are warned to avoid. If you like the change in climate now, who knows maybe you will love the predicted outcomes of 2C warming? If, as seems to be the case, you think the little extra warming currently experienced is, hey, not that great but, you know, not too bad, it might caution you to pay some respect to those gravy-train scientists loopy predictions.
Sorry, I don't know this one. My understanding is that the "actual temperature" fits within the 95% confidence levels of the models relied on. Happy for you to show I am wrong.
Satellites show 2014 was NOT the hottest ever spring
(or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/sa...-or-summer-or-autumn-in-australia/#more-39813
The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.
When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?
I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?
The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…
Click to see the other “not hottest” seasons in Australia.
..
DATA Source: Supplied from John Christy. This is an updated version of the TLT data available here.
(or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/sa...-or-summer-or-autumn-in-australia/#more-39813
The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.
When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?
I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?
The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…
Click to see the other “not hottest” seasons in Australia.
..
DATA Source: Supplied from John Christy. This is an updated version of the TLT data available here.
Funnily enough when one visits Greenpeace's website (known as bom) it does NOT say Australia has just had its hottest spring. What it says is:-Satellites show 2014 was NOT the hottest ever spring
(or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/sa...-or-summer-or-autumn-in-australia/#more-39813
The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.
When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?
I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?
The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…
Click to see the other “not hottest” seasons in Australia.
..
DATA Source: Supplied from John Christy. This is an updated version of the TLT data available here.
[The national mean temperature in September 2014 was more than 1 °C above average, while October saw temperatures of 1.91 °C above average. The year-to-date and the 12-month running mean temperature ending in October 2014 are the 5th- and 6th-highest on record (+0.82 °C and +0.77 °C, respectively).]
What I find extraordinary about the jonova article you have kindly quoted is that it (and John Christy) should be concerned about Australian spring weather. Since climate change is a global problem (if it exists as a problem) what we should be concerned with is not some anomalous result (up or down) in lil ol Oz. We should be worried about the global story. This is what the BOM (sorry, Greenpeace branch office) reports on that:
[The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported that theJanuary to September temperatures in 2014 are currently tied with 1998 as the warmest on record (the global records begin in 1880). September 2014 was the warmest September on record globally and the prior months of August, June and May 2014 were also the warmest months recorded globally according to NOAA. The warmth has been largely driven by sea-surface temperatures, which were the warmest on record.
A continuation of the January to September anomalies would lead to 2014 being in the top three warmest years on record globally. With current significant levels of warmth in the oceans, and the likelihood of persisting warmer-than-average conditions in the Pacific, there is a strong possibility that 2014 will be the warmest year on record.]
Maybe Jonova can save taxpayer's money and email John Christy to confirm the global warming story being told by Greenpeace's other branch office known as US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
telsor
Hall of Famer
The climate changes...This is unquestionable. The global temperature has been rising since the little ice age (which went for ~400 years, ending around 1850), which came after the 'medieval warm period' (which was roughly as warm as it is now). What causes it, and the degree to which various factors affect it is another question, a question on which the science is clearly not 'settled'.
Oh, I'm sure they've all been adjusted to include it now, but predictive models that only work when fudged after the events they're meant to predict happen aren't really very useful, are they?
Show me a model from 20+ years back that predicted the 'pause'.
Carbon levels keep rising significantly, temperature doesn't change much...The linkage clearly isn't as strong as these models suggest.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
there is a relationship but as per boyle's law, CO2 increases in the atmosphere as it is released when the oceans warm up (as we have seen in the past and evidenced by the fact CO2 has increased "after" the temperature has risen).
but the relationship the other way is clearly not as strong as the models predicted. GIGO!
it still doesn't change the fact we should improve our power generation, transport and other polluting sectors but it clearly isn't the alarmist political or even scientific issue it has been made out to be by some elements.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Definitely agree on the last part. All for pollution reduction, just object to the claims of the supposed 'science'.
In Science, when you have a theory that doesn't match up with the facts when tested, the theory is wrong.
'Climate science' is more like 'creation science' than real science.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
don't worry about that, the climate scientists and fanbois don't
You would have to start to think a climate science degree is just a dressed up arts degrees with a political major
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for another 10 years and see if they can get their models right
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'll give them as much time as they need, so long as they stop trying to damage our economy while they're figuring it out.
