Discussion Random Discussion

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

You are right in saying that, but the whole point is that if we can’t reduce our own emissions, how are we supposed to expect China and the USA to lower theirs? Just because our emissions have an incredibly tiny impact on the global scale, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
Every country needs to act. Who’s going to take the first few steps? Why would China take action when other countries won’t?

Mate, China and India (the two most populated countries that are rapidly expanding towards first world countries) will only increase their co2 emissions going forward. This will not stop.

We are a bloody minnow and no one cares what we do either way. Its just reality whether you like it or not. Then just wait for countries like Indonesia and sub-Saharan African countries (one of the fastest growing regions in the world) follow India and China's lead into expanding their power needs.

As I said, its simple reality of the situation but if a few Aussies feel better because we only produce .5% or .75% of the world's Co2 instead of 1%...then yeah, great. I'm sure the world really gives two ****s.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

It’s not factored in because it’s irrelevant. Man made emissions are controllable and are making a huge impact on the worlds climate. The natural climate swings will occur over 10’s of thousands of years.
Our emissions are making a difference within 10’s of years. It’s not sustainable and it’s not something that life can adapt to - because it’s happening so fast.

Like he'll its not factored in. Read up on natural climate change. Its sudden effects can be very devestating for the planet. Its happened before. Even just minor swings. Luckily, humans are very adaptive and we now have the technology to cope.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Call me confused.

No its not about moral high ground. China don't look up to us as their "Dad". Quite the opposite.
Its about results.
Yes the USA are reducing their emissions.
Like a guy who weighs 150Kg can lose more weight than a guy who weighs 60Kg.
The per capita values are irrelevant. It all comes down to tonnes of CO2 into the atmopshere.
So far this is not projected to reduce. ( and its on top of what is already in the atmosphere ).

Hence we need to learn to deal with the consequences.

You can't switch it off.
Australia can't switch it off.
The world will be decades.

GDP is not really relevant, apart from being able to afford infrastructure.
China manufacture, California make movies and own the non manufacturing parts of tech companies. ( though i'd love to see some of the rich list put their money where their mouths are and stop jetsetting around, that won't reverse climate change either , i guess its ok to smoke that durrie if you are so rich and important ).

If Australia could go zero emmissions by tomorrow, there would be no less risk of bushfires this year, next year, next decade.

Phhht... international shipping is responsible for ten times the emissions of Australia, and since its just one big source, it would be a lot easier to halve, than Australia's diversity is.

OK lets do nothing about climate.

So since you are accepting more frequent and hotter fires then we should focus on easier solutions like for the next 20 years

banning any new houses within 150 metres of any substantial patch of forest,
buying back any existing houses within 150 metres of any patch of forest,
shifting the summer school holidays to March/April.

 

[jwikked]

Like he'll its not factored in. Read up on natural climate change. Its sudden effects can be very devestating for the planet. Its happened before. Even just minor swings. Luckily, humans are very adaptive and we now have the technology to cope.

There is a direct correlation between the co2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet. The more co2 we put into the atmosphere - the warmer the planet will get. Natural variations of the earths climate are one thing, but deliberately and repeatedly polluting the atmosphere and deliberately warming the planet is another entirely.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

There is a direct correlation between the co2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet. The more co2 we put into the atmosphere - the warmer the planet will get. Natural variations of the earths climate are one thing, but deliberately and repeatedly polluting the atmosphere and deliberately warming the planet is another entirely.

Away from the theories and computer simulations of man made global warming, this graph is just a bit of food for thought regarding natural climate change which is only showing 15k years out of 4.5 billion.

Very interesting viewing.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Like he'll its not factored in. Read up on natural climate change. Its sudden effects can be very devestating for the planet. Its happened before. Even just minor swings. Luckily, humans are very adaptive and we now have the technology to cope.

Since you've obviously read up on natural climate change can you tell us the last time CO2 levels were at the current levels, when they last rose at the same rate as they are at the moment, what were the natural causes of the rise and what was the human population on earth at that time?

Thanks in advance - (with absolutely no expectation of even an attempt at an answer from you - yet again.) Surprising I would have thought from someone apparently so across the issues.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Since you've obviously read up on natural climate change can you tell us the last time CO2 levels were rising at the same rate as they are at the moment, what were the natural causes of the rise and what was the human population on earth at that time?

Thanks in advance - (with absolutely no expectation of even an attempt at an answer from you - yet again.) Surprising I would have thought from someone apparently so across the issues.

Look at the graph above or here.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Look at the graph above or here.

View attachment 803767

Curious - I thought we were "discussing" the rate of CO2 increases not temps. (although we've know they're connected since Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect in 1852.

So what are we looking at? Can you explain it to me?

Given your inability to answer questions I'll help you out - what we are looking at is a graph comparing the Kobashi and Alley Central Greenland Temp reconstructions that is floated around by some as some sort of mythical destruction of the concept of global warming.

Whats interesting is that the latest data used in the graph you posted is now 20 years old and when you add the latest data it actually now looks like this



Did you simply not know this and get confused or were being disingenuous?

So once again I ask the simple questions - what are the natural processes that are driving an increase in CO2 at rates not seen before on the planet?

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Well firstly, I was talking to someone else about natural climate change which is 100% proven scientific fact and how quickly it can potentially vary and change. Hence the scientific chart which comes from a historian that has sold millions of books.

What are you crapping on about anyway?

Yeah, I'm sure there might be a bit of a link between co2 and some increased temperatures but its been utilised for propaganda purposes and exaggerated for political based ends linked to Green ideology. Natural climate changed has to be added to the debate. That is why the majority of people just switch off these days, don't even care or don't know who to believe around this debate and theory of man made global warming and it's associated dodgy computer simulations.

Lastly, I'm sure we might catch you on TV holding up a fake piece of coal and a ScoMo caused the bushfires placard at one of these far left wing lunatic Greenie protests tomorrow admist the tragedy of a bad bushfire season.

 

[Hubnester]

How good were the Aussie boys in the tennis today. Unreal ending to that doubles match, wish I had been home in time to see more of it. Ridiculous

 

[CursingFijian]

View attachment 803760

Away from the theories and computer simulations of man made global warming, this graph is just a bit of food for thought regarding natural climate change which is only showing 15k years out of 4.5 billion.

Very interesting viewing.

This image dates back to 2017 and originated from an opinion website www.SOTT.net which is officially rated as having a focus on conspiracy theory and psuedoscience. SOTT is an acronym for 'Signs of the Times' which in a way is fitting because it demonstrates how dangerous it is to accept diagrams and sources, never mind how officious and intelligent they look, in the modern era of dissemination by social media. The original article in which the image was found, used it to provide evidence for the existence of Atlantis.



Without knowing the facts I'd say that some right wing nut has latched on to the image and used it as backgrounding for his denialist logic. It then gets shared by thousands of like minded trolls, until here you are and we are being told to accept it as fact. Again, in my opinion it is simply evidence of the corrupted leanings of JRays media feed. Nothing more and nothing less.


The image in pebblesofsand post originates from a publication by Don Easterbrook, who presented diagrammatically the data from Dr Minze Stuiver and Dr Peter Grootes work on oxygen isotope analyses in Greenland. The knock on Easterbrook's work, is that he extrapolated data from Greenland to make predictions about global cooling. In 2001 he predicted that cooling cycles will begin about 2007. In 2006 He said "The current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool." In 2008 he wrote "predicted cooling seems to have already begun," and in the same year wrote "In a nutshell, in 2001 I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus three to five years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data ... If the present cooling trend continues, the [United Nations climate change] reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.”

His predictions have not aged well, with the top 7 hottest years in recorded history coming from the last decade (2010 - 2019). The fact that the modelling which he used to make those now defunct predictions still find traction in the current climate debate can only be interpreted as insidious and again, reflects our media feed.

Unfortunately, getting to the bottom of some of these diagrams and schematics requires some research and reading. And in these modern times it's just easier to swipe left or right and just keep plowing on to through the never-ending onslaught of "recommended" articles.

God help us.

Graham Hancock: Why Science Should Cherish Its Rebels - The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Is Anything But Dead

There is fierce disagreement amongst mainstream scientists - a disagreement that also divides alternative researchers - around what happened to the Earth, and to humanity, in the closing millennia of the last Ice Age between 12,800 and 11,600...

www.sott.net

Signs of the Times (SOTT) - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Checkmate: how do climate science deniers' predictions stack up?

The years 2017, 2016 and 2015 will make up the three hottest years on record for the planet. But there’s no convincing some people

www.theguardian.com

 

[Crusty Undies]

Plus we need to deal with and adapt to "natural climate change" which is a constant on mother Earth. This never goes away. Its a constant. It always has been. This 100% reality gets downplayed and forgotten too often but unfortunately it doesn't get factored into certain people's narrative and bias.

That would be because the temperature is changing at about 1,000 times the rate of "natural" climate change as you put it. So yes. For all intents and purposes it is constant. Unchanging for us. It's changed less than a degree for the entirety of human history before the industrial revolution and nearly 1.5 degrees since then. It's not discounted for some conspiracy you goose. It's because the impact is negligible.

 

[Kildonan]

My position as a scientist was in jeopardy a few years ago because of changing technology. So I wondered what else I would like to do. I decided that I might like to teach science at the high school level so I enrolled in a post graduate teaching course at my local university. Very soon I was in the classroom teaching. This was a wonderful experience for me shaping the minds of the future generation. I didn't have access to much of it as a pre-service teacher, but there are a large number of teaching aids including youtube clips and clever demonstration aids to help the kids understand the concepts that were currently being taught.
One I had was a film clip using special cameras to make CO2 visible. It showed up as a black gas. Black because the field of view was pretty much a literal heat map in Infra-red light and carbon dioxide absorbs heat (hence black). Another one was a view of all the exhausts of cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, factories etc. - some was in false colour light to better demonstrate the effect.

Here is one I liked because of the subtlety of the demonstration. It is an infra-red image of a flame viewed through a cylinder of air. The cylinder is then filled with CO2 and the flame is examined to see what effect the gas has on the image of the flame.

 

[Stewart66]

Since you've obviously read up on natural climate change can you tell us the last time CO2 levels were at the current levels, when they last rose at the same rate as they are at the moment, what were the natural causes of the rise and what was the human population on earth at that time?

Thanks in advance - (with absolutely no expectation of even an attempt at an answer from you - yet again.) Surprising I would have thought from someone apparently so across the issues.

Mate never argue with an idiot , they will only bring you down to their level & beat you with experience.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

OK lets do nothing about climate.

So since you are accepting more frequent and hotter fires then we should focus on easier solutions like for the next 20 years

banning any new houses within 150 metres of any substantial patch of forest,
buying back any existing houses within 150 metres of any patch of forest,
shifting the summer school holidays to March/April.

OK lets do something about climate.
Lets stop ALL Australian emissions.

You still need to take those actions, because the problem still exists.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

OK lets do something about climate.
Lets stop ALL Australian emissions.

You still need to take those actions, because the problem still exists.

Yep, and wreck our economy and millions of Aussie lives and families for nothing.

 

[triggering bro]

It’s incredible to think there is still a debate about whether climate change is impacted by humans. This was established decades ago.

The greenhouse effect 101: When gases are added to the Earth’s atmosphere, more of the sun’s heat is trapped and this causes the Earth’s average temperature to rise. This has & continues to be part of approved curriculum at schools.

It is no coincidence that the climate has been changing at a rate of knots since the industrial revolution. It is indisputable that water temperatures are increasing hence the concern about the polar ice caps melting - this would lead to an increase in water levels around the globe by approx 7 metres. Goodbye coastal cities where most humans reside & rely upon.

95% of independent scientists who specialise in climate activity conclude that climate change is an occurrence due to the increase in CO2 & it is directly due to humans.

Of the 5% of scientists that conclude differently look who is financing their research & consider their economic interests. Also consider the political power this industry has & the amount of money they can utilise to lobby their agenda to politicians.

Guess who is really, really concerned about climate change? The insurance & banking industries. That says it all.

Apart from ignorant people the biggest threats are religion - conservative christians especially in the US traditionally deny climate change because it conflicts with their ideology; those with economic interests - the coal & mining industry...dah; & by extension political leaders & influences - dictated by the beforementioned.

Climate deniers are agitators & in the same category as flat-earthers. Their agenda is just another form of anarchism. Luckily their opinions are usually taken with a grain of salt. The obvious is obvious for a reason & not all one big conspiracy.

I warned you peeps about Johnny just sayin.

 

[jwikked]

Yep, and wreck our economy and millions of Aussie lives and families for nothing.

The funny thing is that it won't wreck our economy. A transition to renewable energy and the industries around that would be a huge benefit to the country. Not to mention cheaper power and cleaner air. Surely you're not against cleaner air, too?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Heard this in the past.

1) The right will deny climate change

2) It is some huge commo plot

3) we are too small to make a difference

All of this I have heard for thirty years.

Now when the shit has hit the fan and exactly what Garnault forsaw in 2008 has come to pass we get

4) oh climate change is real but we can't do anything about it now.

FMD and some now call for us to come together. [emoji849][emoji849]

No thanks. I will never 'come together' with denialists.

So what's your plan?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The funny thing is that it won't wreck our economy. A transition to renewable energy and the industries around that would be a huge benefit to the country. Not to mention cheaper power and cleaner air. Surely you're not against cleaner air, too?

So what's your plan.
Under the current energy producing climate, Capital will not pay for itself.
There are two costs, capital costs and production costs.

You need a large amount of surplus generation capacity, since the wind/sun is unpredictable, and the solar sucks at night.
Then you still need a backup or storage solution.
If you think you will be able to buy power cheaper , under the current commercial arrangement you're dreaming.
To replace a 10Mw coal power station you'd need. 40Mw or so of solar and wind capacity AND the coal power station for emergencies.

I do consider that if you wanted to go off grid for a home, you could have a reasonable solar solution with storage and fossil fuel backup for around $30 000.
That would be around 15 years payback for a typical household based on their current electricity costs. Most commercial operations wouldn't look at that.
It kind of makes more sense to have the panel on your roof though, rather than have the same panel in a "solar farm" hundreds of miles away, and having associated transmission costs, and you are cutting out a middle man, who does nothing but gouge profits.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The funny thing is that it won't wreck our economy. A transition to renewable energy and the industries around that would be a huge benefit to the country. Not to mention cheaper power and cleaner air. Surely you're not against cleaner air, too?

What industries around it. We'd be buying tech from overseas.

 

[Joffaboy]

So what's your plan?

I don't run the show. I do what I can. I eat little meat as that is a huge contributer, we have solar, I use the train when I can, we recycle, we carbon offset when we fly.

The next part of this dance is now I will be accused of being some Greenie leftie because I individually try.

Like you I am powerless. What else do you expect me to do? Protest?

Do that and you get howled down by the right for being looney and disruptive.

Discuss on a forum? Get critisised for not personally fixing this climate change disaster.

I do what is possible. Maybe if more did that the mood would swing towards not destroying the planet.

 

[CaptainRisky]

For anyone who is interested in Boxing , Can you please share this around on Facebook ect ,, Thanks guys

 

[jwikked]

What industries around it. We'd be buying tech from overseas.

The whole idea is to create those industries. Be the world leader in producing battery storage. Be the world leader in solar panel production. We have world class manufacturing capabilities we just need to use them.

 

[SaintersUnite]

Guys it’s spitting with rain today, that must disprove global warming am I right?

“Why should we do anything to help the planet when we’re such a small nation and bigger countries aren’t doing it? Let’s just look out for ourselves.”

Meanwhile every other country in the world is thinking the exact same thing, so nothing ever gets done and the planet eventually burns to a crisp and we all die of heat stroke and starvation. Congrats everyone, the money talks, and at least our kids won’t have to worry about our booming economy.