For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link makes interesting reading.
Printable View
For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link makes interesting reading.
I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?
Facts are interesting things aren't they? One person's facts are another person's hype. It has been slowly dawning on me over the last 40 odd years that there are a great many things that nobody knows for sure. Another thing is that there is always more to a story than meets the eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Agreed silentc, it is one of my favourite replies to those people quoting the magical "2.3deg warmer in 20 years" - how come the same science cannot give us an accurate 1day forecast - let alone an accurate 4 day forecast:doh:.
As a physicist let me correct some misconceptions being put up here and give you some perspectives that are missing.
Firstly, is it man made global happening? The consensus of experts says yes and that is good enough for me. Those that say no are mostly crackpots or have vested interests.
Ice bergs melting: Yes they have melted before as have the ice caps (our lab works on polar ice and snow over the last few glacial cycles). What we do know is this has happened fairly slowly and life generally had time to adapt to the changes. What we are doing is forcing the climate system beyond it's capacity to adapt. The coral reefs will die (sorry - ARE dying), not adapt as will WA Jarrah and Karri.
Energy supplies: We should not be looking around for magic bullets we should spread the development of new energy generation across a range of technologies.
Bio-fuels: Would seem to work well in low population areas and Oz Acacias/Eucalpyts are ideal for this but we have no infrastructure (and it brings with it the exciting possibilities of exoctic acacia timber availability as well!). 1/10th of the arable land in Australia would supply all our fuel needs. In contrast if Germany wanted to supply its own fuel all the arable land in the country would be required. Tropical countries are attracted to biofuels but cutting down rain forest to plant biofuels is a dumb idea.
Nuclear: We have enough Uranium for about 50 years if ALL we use is nuclear. That is nuts and as big a squandering of resources as the oil waste. A sensible use of nuclear is as a base power source makes sense in countries where population density and other supplies are insufficient. If it is spread over time it could last 200 years and ultimately there is breeder reactor technology. I did my PhD on a natural fossil breeder reactor and nuclear waste disposal - this is a serious but solvable situation and a smaller, easier and a shorter term problem than CO2 sequestration. Fourth generation nuclear plants will also be inherently more efficient and safer than present day reactors. Then there is Thorium as a nuclear fuel (which Oz has 40% of the worlds known supply). We just need to hang in long enough for fusion which currently has a next generation reactor being built in France. Do I see future based entirely on nuclear - definitely not, but it is already playing an important role in many countries which have little else and we should be doing more with it.
Solar Energy and Hydrogen: We should set up huge solar energy plants in hot areas cracking water to make hydrogen for fuel. The price (even after economies of scale) will be $5-$8 a litre energy equivalent so we need more efficient cars. Cars in cities and townes can run on electricity but hybrids will be needed for long range use and for planes. Storage is a big problem. Fourth generation nuclear that make hydrogen direct from superheated water is another source of this important fuel.
Construction: Did you know that after burning fossil fuels, making concrete is the next biggest CO2 producer? Every ton of concrete makes a tone of CO2. We already have the technology to use materials that generate 1/10th of this and this is widely used in Europe but guess who controls this in Oz?
Finally here is something to think about that shows how serious the problem is. To get CO2 back to an even level in the atmosphere using present day technologies you will only be allowed to have ONE of these per year (http://www.manicore.com/anglais/).
- Short intercontinental plane trip
- Use 3200 kWh electricity (22000 kWh in France or Sweden) (100 W light bulb for 1 hr/day)
- A third of a small car
- Large plasma screen TV,
- 2 tons of concrete (house requires 10 tons),
- Drive 5000 km - city traffic in a subcompact car
- Drive 1500 km - in a large 4WD or V8
- Heat/Cool a medium sized home for 3 months
I think this puts things into perspective. What few people realize is that it is a lot more serious than changing to a few low energy use light bulbs and buying a smaller car. It's about changing everything we do and what we do it with. Like the guy on SilentC movie (who is that BTW?) the alternative is far less attractive.
My biggest concern is that all kids of today need to know more science and maths than ever to tackle this problem but few want to study these important subjects.
So, how can I drive 5000km in a third of a small car?:rolleyes:
The answer is in your question. Weather and climate are two different thing. Climate is long term weather is very short term. Much of the past climate is written in the geological record of the earth and is the basis for study and interpretation. Only extreme weather events register and then for a short time.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
G'day BobL,
An excellent post and even better to read it from someone in the industry and more than qualified to give your 2¢ worth. :2tsup:
Unfortunately it still won't convince a relative of mine. :( We just have to agree to disagree. :shrug: But I'll still use and refer to your post.
Wow "junkscience.com" - a respected and well cited scientific resource I must add that to my "must read" science list. NOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
FWIW, here is the credentials of the editor of junkscience.com: Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com
And what about the Free Enterprise Action Fund? Here is a quote from their website"
"Left-wing social and political activists are harnessing the power, resources and influence of publicly-owned corporations to advance their social and political agendas. (1) Frustrated by their failure to advance their agendas in the public political process, these activists use capitalism against capitalism under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and “socially responsible investing.” (2) Their movement threatens shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise."
Interesting what you can find if you dig a little.
I could debunk his junk but I have real science to get on with! :D
Time will tell, I refuse to be pannicked by outlandish false claims about AGW.
It is easer to believe when the media will not give the other side a mention. People have claimed AGW is a foregone conclusion and "the debate is over". In science the debate is never over. There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.
Every argument is opinion based on opinion or computer models that are flakey and faulty. Any one can point to an event and blame it on AGW.
The Globe has warmed and cooled forever and will continue to do so forever. We are better spending money on dealing with the results of climate change rather than trying to effect it. For sure as hell there will be global cooling sometime in the future.
I suggest anyone who simply reads the newspaper or follows the mob to form their opinion should take time to read the science disputing AGW.
For many, regardless of any credible evidence produced to the contrary will not convince them that AGW is a fraud. Only time will tell.
For three years you buy a 1/3 of a car THEN you can drive it 5000 km a year - BUT the rest of the time you have to live like 3rd world person and burn small animal dung fires for cookingQuote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
So, I guess that means I can't use my chainsaw mill either then?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Yeah I understand that. There are so many variables involved in producing weather that it would be virtually impossible to accurately model what is going on now, let alone what might happen tomorrow. It's just that a few people seem to be quite adamant about a number of things that I believe are not really all that predictable. But then if scientists prefaced everything with "we believe" they would just sound uncertain and unreliable - which is ironic...Quote:
Weather and climate are two different thing.
http://www.youtube.com/wonderingmind42Quote:
who is that BTW?
So I take it you have a piece of concrete non-debatable conclusive evidence that denies AGW?Quote:
There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.
I dunno, you're still arguing about something you have no control over. It's just a silly and pointless debate I think, except at an academic level. The concerns have been raised by the scientific community, all we have to decide is whether to do anything about it or not.
Its all about managing Risk.
When you weigh up the probability of AGW against the consequences,
you realise that its too risky to do nothing.
Of the 4 scenarios i.e. Action/No Action -Vs- Fact/Hype,
Taking no action when AGW is a fact has the biggest negative impact.
Is it worth the risk ?
That's what it boils down to.