Climate Change | Global Warming | BS or not?

Eric Frei · 20th December 2009, 04:01 PM

Couple of interesting things.

Disappearing sunspots may signal end to global warming

Quote:

Well, so far during the recent solar minimum (a period of low activity during the sun’s typical 11-year solar cycle), we’ve seen 183 sun-spotless days in 2007, 266 in 2008 and 259 in 2009 (as of Dec. 16 2009). Earth hasn’t witnessed a similar three-year stretch (1911, 192, 1913) of sun-spotless days since the early 1900s.

The blank sun has not gone unnoticed by the experts. "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

So why are sunspots under the spotlight? Because, according to solar scientists, their declining numbers, significant even by solar-minimum standards, could be the harbinger of colder temperatures ahead.

If so, it won’t be the first time the earth shivered as sunspots numbers declined. In the 17th century, the sun experienced a sunspot drought, dubbed the Maunder Minimum, which lasted 70 years – from 1645 until 1715. Astronomers at the time counted only a few dozen sunspots per year, thousands fewer than usual.

As sunspots vanished temperatures fell. The River Thames in London froze, sea ice was reported along the coasts of southeast England, and ice floes blocked many harbors. Agricultural production nose-dived as growing seasons grew shorter, leading to lower crop yields, food shortages and famine.

Canadian author and National Post environmental columnist Lawrence Solomon describes the period:

“Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finland’s population fell by one-third, Iceland’s by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland [yes, it was once green, with forests and pastureland] were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities. The cold in North America spread so far south that, in the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.”

Is mankind headed for another cool-down or big freeze? Based on recent scientific findings, it might be a possibility. A Danish research team led by Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, has discovered a strong correlation between sunspot activity, galactic cosmic rays and variations in the earth’s climate, a theory (supported by experiments) that challenges the prevailing concept of human-induced climate change, popularly known as anthropogenic global warming.

Henrik and his team have discovered that increased solar activity in the form of sunspots, flares and other disturbances generate solar winds that strengthen the magnetic fields surrounding earth, creating a bubble that suppresses cosmic ray penetration, inhibiting cloud formation and causing warming.

Conversely, when solar activity diminishes, the protective magnetic bubble weakens and more cosmic rays penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. The high-energy particles serve as host nuclei around which water vapor can condense and form droplets, resulting in more cloud cover and precipitation. Temperatures begin to fall as the clouds reflect more sunlight back into space.

“Galactic cosmic rays carry with them radiation from other parts of our galaxy,” says Ed Smith, NASA’s Ulysses project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance the heliosphere [earth’s protective bubble] will diminish in size and strength. If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our solar system.”

If Svensmark and other climate scientists are correct, the decline in solar activity may be responsible for the recent fall in global temperatures. In 1998, global temperatures at the earth’s surface began leveling off and have actually declined slightly since 2001, despite an increase in CO2 levels, calling into question the accuracy of climate models that predict catastrophic global warming.

The decade-long cool-down is clearly visible in satellite temperature measurements, which are widely viewed as more accurate than land-based temperatures readings, according to Dr. David Evans, who was a researcher with the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1995 to 2005. Such readings, he says, are often skewed by what is called the “urban heat island” effect, which articially elevates temperatures.

“NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling,” says Evans. “The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.”

As Svensmark observes:

“In fact, global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the [global warming] projections of future climate are unreliable.”

If what Svensmark and other researchers say is true, it is very likely that when the heated debate between global warmers and global-warming skeptics finally ends, cooler heads may ultimately prevail.

Man-made CO2 has minimal effect on climate change, claim global-warming skeptics

Quote:

Fact 5: Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect, and man’s contribution to it is insignificant. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are responsible for only about 0.117 percent (see accompanying graph) of Earth's greenhouse effect. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over 4 inches.

Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs – are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.

Bob Tooley · 21st December 2009, 02:41 AM

I think I've said this before in an earlier post, but.... "nothing in nature happens fast",.... and much of the public's reactions come from Hollywood movies where the whole event has to happen before you get too bored to watch the rest of the movie,... and I think a number of these researchers are out to make a name for themselves and of course I'm sure the money is good.

While figures point out mankind's contribution to the total damage-ratio, it fails to subtract the percentage attributed to the existence of man as a species. We are required to eat, breathe and eliminate wasted just as any other species, and those are all unavoidable issues regardless of cars, houses, manufacturing and other developments.... and this figure MUST be eliminated from the total figures before you can start looking at 'what can be reduced'.

I'm not so worried about the idiots that stand up in front of people and make a complete ass of themselves as I am of the one's who will listen and follow them.. It also says we are on the verge of a new evolution within our own species.... a new species that doesn't even try to think for itself anymore.....

Maybe we need more wars.....it eliminates people therefor it reduces the contribution to their portion of global warming...........

Eric Frei · 8th January 2010, 08:12 PM

Just ask all the freezing Poms if it's global warming or freezing.

Since they walked out of Copenhagen the northern hemisphere is freezing over.

Done it · 8th January 2010, 10:09 PM

No wonder, they took enough hot air up there.

Did you see this? It's what I was saying months ago and it's only part of it. Nobody could figure the real amount.

The Carbon Cost of Copenhagen

16,500 delegates from 192 countries, 5,000 journos and 40,000 eco-campaigners amounting to over 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, (roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006). The organisers laid 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals were served and visitors busily sipped over 200,000 cups of coffee.
Cost of Copenhagen | Bluegrass Consulting: Grassroots Public Affairs

Eric Frei · 6th February 2010, 02:44 PM

FT.com / Global Economy - Scientists feel heat over climate e-mails

Quote:

At issue are e-mails sent by Professor Jones and other climate scientists at the UEA and universities around the world over a period of years. Some of the messages, which were hacked from a UEA server and posted on the web, appear to show malpractice within the research unit.

There are three clear charges: that Prof Jones and others tried to subvert the scientific peer-review process; that he attempted to conceal data that others requested; and that some data were manipulated. British police are also investigating the case.

Eric Frei · 3rd April 2010, 10:57 PM

3000 year records from Sequoias show ....

Quote:

The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry.

Source: Giant sequoias yield longest fire history from tree rings

Quote:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2010) — A 3,000-year record from 52 of the world's oldest trees shows that California's western Sierra Nevada was droughty and often fiery from 800 to 1300, according to new research.

Scientists reconstructed the 3,000-year history of fire by dating fire scars on ancient giant sequoia trees, Sequoiadendron giganteum, in the Giant Forest of Sequoia National Park. Individual giant sequoias can live more than 3,000 years.

"It's the longest tree-ring fire history in the world, and it's from this amazing place with these amazing trees." said lead author Thomas W. Swetnam of the University of Arizona in Tucson. "This is an epic collection of tree rings."

The new research extends Swetnam's previous tree-ring fire history for giant sequoias another 1,000 years into the past. In addition, he and his colleagues used tree-ring records from other species of trees to reconstruct the region's past climate.

The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry.

"What's not so well known about the Medieval Warm Period is how warm it was in the western U.S.," Swetnam said. "This is one line of evidence that it was very fiery on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada -- and there's a very strong relationship between drought and fire."

Droughts are typically both warm and dry, he added.

Knowing how giant sequoia trees responded to a 500-year warm spell in the past is important because scientists predict that climate change will probably subject the trees to such a warm, dry environment again, said Swetnam, a UA professor of dendrochronology and director of UA's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

During the Medieval Warm Period extensive fires burned through parts of the Giant Forest at intervals of about 3 to 10 years, he said. Any individual tree was probably in a fire about every 10 to 15 years.

The team also compared charcoal deposits in boggy meadows within the groves to the tree-ring fire history. The chronology of charcoal deposits closely matches the tree-ring chronology of fire scars.

The health of the giant sequoia forests seems to require those frequent, low-intensity fires, Swetnam said. He added that as the climate warms, carefully reintroducing low-intensity fires at frequencies similar to those of the Medieval Warm Period may be crucial for the survival of those magnificent forests, such as those in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Since 1860, human activity has greatly reduced the extent of fires. He and his colleagues commend the National Park Service for its recent work reintroducing fire into the giant sequoia groves.

The team's report, "Multi-Millennial Fire History of the Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park, California, USA," was published in the electronic journal Fire Ecology in February. A complete list of authors and funding sources is at the bottom of this release.

To study tree rings, researchers generally take a pencil-sized core from a tree. The oldest rings are those closest to the center of the tree. However, ancient giant sequoias can have trunks that are 30 feet in diameter -- far too big to be sampled using even the longest coring tools, which are only three feet long.

To gather samples from the Giant Forest trees, the researchers were allowed to collect cross-sections of downed logs and standing dead trees, he said. It turned out to be a gargantuan undertaking that required many people and many field seasons.

"We were sampling with the largest chain saws we could find -- a chain-saw bar of seven feet," he said. "We were hauling these slabs of wood two meters on a side as far as two kilometers to the road. We were using wheeled litters -- the emergency rescue equipment for people -- and put a couple hundred pounds on them."

To develop a separate chronology for past fires, co-authors R. Scott Anderson and Douglas J. Hallett looked for charcoal in sediment cores taken from meadows within the sequoia groves.

"We can compare the charcoal and tree-ring fire records. It confirms that the charcoal is a good indicator of past fires," Swetnam said.

Such charcoal-based fire histories can extend much further into the past than most tree-ring-based fire histories, he said. The charcoal history of fire in the giant sequoia groves extends back more than 8,000 years.

Increasingly, researchers all over the world are using charcoal to reconstruct fire histories, Swetnam said. Many scientists are analyzing the global record of charcoal to study relationships between climate, fire and the resulting addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Swetnam's co-authors are Christopher H. Baisan and Ramzi Touchan of the University of Arizona; Anthony C. Caprio of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in Three Rivers, Calif.; Peter M. Brown of the Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research and Colorado State University in Fort Collins; R. Scott Anderson of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff; and Douglas J. Hallett of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

The National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest and Calaveras Big Trees State Park provided funding.

Eric Frei · 28th April 2010, 03:31 PM

Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp' | Environment | The Guardian

Quote:

Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp'

Belfast ecologist forced to hand over tree-ring data describes order from information commission as a 'staggering injustice'

An arch-critic of climate scientists has won a major victory in his campaign to win access to British university data that could reveal details of Europe's past climate.

In a landmark ruling, the UK Information Commissioner's Office has ruled that Queen's University Belfast must hand over data obtained during 40 years of research into 7,000 years of Irish tree rings to a City banker and part-time climate analyst, Doug Keenan.

This week, the Belfast ecologist who collected most of the data, Professor Mike Baillie, described the ruling as "a staggering injustice ... We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and - using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data."

Keenan revealed this week that he is launching a new assault. On Monday, he demanded the university also hand over emails that could reveal a three-year conspiracy to block his data request.

Keenan has become notorious for pursuing a series of vitriolic disputes with British academics over climate data. Two years ago, he accused Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia of "fraud" over his analysis of data from weather stations in China. Jones recently conceded he may have to revise the paper concerned.

The latest ruling comes from Graham Smith, deputy information commissioner, who in January said information requests to CRU from climate sceptics were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation." In the Belfast case, as well as insisting the university hand over the data, Smith has accused the university authorities of "a number of procedural breaches."

The case goes back to April 2007, when Keenan asked Queen's University for all data from tree-ring studies by Baillie and others. The data covers more than 7,000 years. They contain upwards of 1m measurements from 11,000 tree samples, mostly of oak. The university turned down Keenan's request, citing a range of exemptions allowed under both the Freedom of Information Act and the European Union's environmental information regulations. Keenan appealed to the information commissioner.

Over the subsequent three years, the university has claimed that it did not have to supply the data because it would be too time-consuming; because the data does not amount to environmental information; because the research is unfinished; because the data is private property, commercially confidential and of "negligible" public interest – and because Keenan would not understand them.

But Smith says the university, one of the world's leading centres for tree-ring research, is wrong on each count. His judgment notes that rather than taking 12 months to collate the data, as the university at first claimed, it would take 12 hours. Smith chastised the university for failing to comply with a number of regulations in assessing Keenan's original request. The university has until 3 May to provide the data to Keenan, unless it appeals. The university says it is "considering its position."

Keenan says he believes the Irish tree rings could bolster the case that there was a widespread medieval warm period on Earth 1,000 years ago. This is contentious because it would question the suggestion that warming in the 20th century was unique in recent history.

Baillie says his data won't help either way in this argument. Last year he and his Belfast colleague Ana Garcia-Suarez, published a study showing that Irish oaks record summer rainfall well, but not temperature. "Keenan is the only person in the world claiming that our oak-ring patterns are temperature records," Baillie told the Guardian.

Keenan, who admits he has no expertise in tree-ring analysis, says that whatever the data may or may not reveal, the university has no right to keep the data secret. The deputy information commissioner agrees.

The finding, combined with Smith's earlier strictures against the University of East Anglia, could have widespread repercussions for academic research. Baillie calls the ruling "a direct, and unpleasant, off-shoot of the information revolution. It now appears that research data can be demanded, and indeed obtained, by anyone."

Keenan, meanwhile, has upped the ante. Following the ruling, he this week asked the university to supply emails between Baillie and the head of the university's centre for climate, environment and chronology, Paula Reimer over the past three years. He told the Guardian they could reveal a conspiracy to prevent him getting Baillie's data. "The university has obviously not understood how things changed in the wake of climategate," he said. "They still think they can act with impunity."

sueann · 30th April 2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Not quite a documentary, but fun to watch.

YouTube - Gary The Global Warming Goat

omg!! that is the rudest goat ever!

Eric Frei · 8th May 2010, 09:51 AM

Slowly the attitude is turning.

One in three voters against paying for climate change 'myth' | Herald Sun

Quote:

The survey showed two-thirds of respondents were not convinced by man-made climate change, despite "billions of dollars of government propaganda," said John Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs.

chainsawland · 15th May 2010, 04:59 AM

I don't know about world climate, but the climate is great here today. So lets keep the oil flowing in the Gulf of Mexico!

Eric Frei · 29th October 2010, 09:54 PM

Study finds trees not so large carbon sinks

Quote:

The capacity of trees to counter rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere may not be as great as previously thought, according to a new study with significant implications for predicting future climate change.

Quote:

"We're going to have to learn not to trust in trees to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as we had hoped," says Professor McMurtrie.

Eric Frei · 22nd December 2010, 12:39 PM

So is taxing coal etc like Kevin Rudd was thinking the way forward? Nope, and why he was backstabbed.

Black coal must become green | The Australian

Quote:

December 21, 2010
We need new ways to clean up our essential energy source.

WITH the Queensland government's decision to write off $150 million on the ZeroGen experimental clean coal power plant, we have to hope for positive results from other projects under way around the country. This is because cleaning up coal emissions is our single best hope of reducing the amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. We certainly cannot end our reliance on coal. Apart from the $58 billion in export income coal earned last year, it keeps the lights on at home, producing close to 80 per cent of our electricity-- and most of the world's. Last month, the International Energy Agency estimated renewable-based power generation would treble over the next 25 years. But wind power is unpopular and unreliable and the IEA suggests solar sources will only ever account for 2 per cent of global electricity. Short of going nuclear, the only power source environmental activists hate more, coal is the only way to produce the enormous amounts of power industrialising India and China need to fuel factories and heat and cool homes. This is not a matter of choice for Asia, or for us. In Australia, electricity consumption is expected to rise by 2 per cent each year until 2020, making coal as indispensable as it is affordable.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Certainly green energy activists argue that alternative energy, plus natural gas, can take on more of the load now borne by coal-fired power plants. There are suggestions that spending $14bn on gas generators could cut our carbon emissions by 10 per cent, but only at very high prices, especially when a bigger role for green energy is added. While the cost of alternative energy will drop as technology improves, green power has a long way to go before, indeed if ever, it can compete with coal. At present, big coal-fired power plants can produce electricity for about $50 a megawatt hour. In comparison, a NSW scheme paid $6000 a megawatt hour for solar power supplied to the grid by panels on residential roofs. This is not to deny the case for cutting the amount of greenhouse gas Australia produces, nor to argue against establishing a market mechanism that sets a price for carbon to encourage cuts. But these are different arguments to the impossible dream that we can dramatically reduce our use of coal.

The challenge is to find ways to either burn coal more cleanly or to use the gas it generates, which makes Queensland's conclusion that ZeroGen's clean-burning coal approach is uneconomic a disappointment. But new technologies take time to perfect. Solar power was the next big thing in the 1970s and it remains a boutique power source. Nor is the ZeroGen approach, which extracts carbon before coal gas is pumped into a power generator, the only option. Other Australian projects focus on storing carbon underground after the coal is burned, rather than altering its composition before combustion, and there is money for new ideas. Canberra will award another $2bn to researchers next year. Around the world, scientists are investigating using algae to soak up carbon emissions and then create crude oil and cement-style building products. About $US25bn is being spent around the world on carbon-capture storage projects. The US is expected to have half a dozen CCS plants operating by 2020 and the Chinese, who have no choice but to keep burning more coal, are working on CCS schemes. This is a race we should encourage and compete in. Like it or not, coal will stay king.

And is the average punter prepared to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to paying more for green energy? Nope.

Friendly energy costing us too much | The Daily Telegraph

Quote:

December 22, 2010
THE overwhelming majority of users are not prepared to pay more for electricity to subsidise green energy.

A dailytelegraph.com.au survey conducted yesterday found 93 per cent of more than 800 respondents were not willing to pay extra to make renewables more viable.

The poll was conducted as energy retailer AGL scrambled to stop an exodus of customers angry with it lifting prices by 3.8 per cent to cover its green power bill.

The Daily Telegraph revealed yesterday that AGL would increase charges by an average of $54 per annum from January 1 in order to meet its obligation to purchase about $20 million worth of small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, created by the Federal Government to fund green power infrastructure.

Next year NSW's 11 retailers will have to spend a combined $360 million buying STCs.

"This is not an AGL cost, we are passing through a cost which the Federal Government is imposing on all retailers from January 1. You can expect to see the other retailers pass through this unavoidable cost to their customers too," an AGL spokesman said yesterday.

Some AGL customers who complained to AGL yesterday were offered discounts of up to 7 per cent - plus $50 vouchers for its stores. That won't be enough to stop Mark Stam from switching.

"I'm still paying more," the Panania father-of-two said.

AGL is being forced to fight for its own customers at the same time as it had vowed to "compete aggressively" to win over some of the three million customers of EnergyAustralia, Country Energy and Integral, whose patronage was last week sold to TruEnergy and Origin by the State Government.

AGL has said it plans to spend $150-$300 on convincing these customers to switch.

derwoodii · 27th December 2010, 06:20 PM

This is a big topic and my position is likely different than many posted here.
I'll start by saying what I think.
Yes GW is happening
Yes its partially man made.
No point taxin carbon.
No point hopin things will stay the same
The convergence of GW Peak oil & Over population will combine soon enough. Some will miss out some will adapt.

On ther matter of GW and its sceptics heres a few thoughts to consider

E-mails sent by Professor Jones and other climate scientists at the UEA and universities around the world over a period of years. Some of the messages, which were hacked from a UEA server and posted on the web, appear to show malpractice within the research unit.

A bit about this is here,

YouTube - Wikileaks on "Climategate" ...

Then some readin, not mine just cut n paste oh but the last thought is.

54 Reasons Deniers Are Hypocrites.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. They profess that markets can solve all problems while simultaneously preaching that businesses will never be able to adapt to higher energy prices.

2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.

3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).

4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.

5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change.

6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so, despite being responsible for the majority of the emissions during the past century or so.

7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.

8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.

9. They support subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power but not for renewable energy.

10. They claim to believe in property rights, but won't stop polluters from sending their CO2 onto other people's property (or the common property of the atmosphere).

11. They call themselves "conservatives" but oppose efforts at conservation.

12. They claim humans are not wise enough to intervene in the economy without causing unintended consequences, but have no problems with humans massively intervening in Nature by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere .

13. They say it's unwise to make decisions off of uncertain climate models, while basing their own predictions of economic doom off of uncertain economic models.

14. Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse.

15. They removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail. But they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not be allowed to fail.

16. They say 30 years is too short a time to conclude there's a global warming trend, but base their own claims of "global cooling" on a 10-year trend.

17. They say scientists don't respect skepticism or disagreement, then point to disagreements between scientists as evidence of conspiracy or that the science isn't "certain.”

18. They say CO2 can't affect climate, but also use the argument that CO2 must be saving us from an ice age.

19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research .

20. They never criticize each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one, e.g. they say it's the sun causing global warming, and when the sun cools down they say it's cosmic rays.

21. Denier Willis Eschenbach falsely accuses Australian scientists of fraud for "blatantly bogus" adjustments of temperature data - without ever contacting the scientists to ask why the adjustments were made, or even mentioning their previously-published explanations. Then, when The Economist calls him out, Willis whines, "the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements."

22. They accuse university scientists, small renewable energy companies, and Al Gore of manufacturing "alarmism" for money, while ignoring the far greater financial incentives of the giant fossil fuel industry to manufacture doubt, denial, and delay.

23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW.

24. They promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything else.

25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. [e.g. "Leftists, Communists, elitist snakes that prey on our children in their quest to take over the world etc. etc. ad nauseum."]

26. They say, "You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong," but then they claim "Loehle's reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today!"

27. Denier S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position." But then: "A reviewer of IPCC reports, Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference 'Have Humans Changed the Climate?,' hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament."

28. They claim that temperature data that shows warming cannot be trusted because it has been fraudulently adjusted, but then use that same data when it shows temporary cooling to say that "observations prove the models' predictions wrong."

29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled".

30. They demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for the code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data.

31. They challenge the scientific consensus and demand empirical "proof" that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves. "I'm just asking questions!"

32. They oppose government regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourage research into and development of renewable energy, because that would be "too much government intervention in people's lives." Yet by and large they are the same people who will pass laws to prevent/regulate abortion, gay marriage etc.

33. Climate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely.

34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in pre-industrial times.

35. They claim proxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet denialists use them to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision.

36.They say instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, deniers point out that the measurements are being corrected constantly. Then they say that it is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case.

37. They say it's disingenuous to point to extreme weather events (Hurricane Katrina, wild fires, etc.) as evidence of warming, but crow joyously over every cold weather event ("it's snowing in Texas or Florida!).

38. They point to the "decline" in tree-ring proxy data as evidence that Michael Mann is covering up cooling temperatures, but criticize proxies as unreliable when they show past temperatures cooler than today's (and when temps look warmer in the past, they accept the proxy data as reliable again).

39. They say the US can't act on greenhouse gas reductions until other countries agree to, and then fly to Copenhagen to try to prevent other countries from acting.

40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science.

41. When climate scientists don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of 'hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line.

42. Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide.

43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks.

44. Taking as gospel truth sources which up until that moment they had previously castigated as never to be trusted (e.g. last year's Pravda article claiming the Sun was the cause of GW)

45. Criticizing AGWers [people who accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming] because of their political and/or religious leanings while complaining they are being criticizing solely because of their political and/or religious leanings.

46. They say that we know nothing about clouds and subsequently they say that clouds can explain the warming trend.

47. They say there hasn't been any warming, but later they explain the warming is from a mechanism different than CO2.

48. They explain the warming with mutually exclusive theories (eg. cloud albedo, sun, ocean currents...)

49. They criticize climate advocates for "wanting to send us into a technological dark age," even though they themselves advocate the use of 19th century energy production technologies over innovation and research.

50. They favor the UAH satellite data and say it is the most accurate - until that data also shows warming, and then they start looking for errors in it.

51. They claim the peer review process is broken and yet cite (the very rare) peer reviewed studies as proof when it suits them - trumpeting the fact that it's peer reviewed!

52. Uber-denialist and oil-funded Senator Inhofe uses arguments from paleo-climate to 'disprove' global warming yet is also a Young-Earth creationist who believes the earth was created around 6000BC - well after the data he cites.

53. They claim to support "good science" and technological process while citing people whose ideas retard technological progress - e.g. who don't believe in evolution and an expert in the made-up field of 'Orgone Energy' (this is energy from your libido! As seen in the Cato Institute Ad featuring 'Dr' James DeMeo.

54. They claim that they are sticking up for liberty and against big government while opposing the development of markets and technologies that would lead to micro-generation and so free us from centralized production energy that requires state regulation.

And on and on and on and on.........Well actually I worry when people who trust the BOM weather reports to tell em when to have a BBQ or go sailin or take a jacket daily weekly well all their lives. Then dont trust em when they say er we think its gettin hotter, maybe we should do somthin.....

Done it · 28th December 2010, 11:22 PM

I gave up on this ages ago but.

Methane, it's been blamed on cows and land fil tips. What about Wooly mammoths and cavemen loggers?

"Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago."
Climate concern: Siberian ice, methane gas - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

Don't you think it would contribute a little?

It's fun though.

YouTube - Amazing video of exploding under-ice methane gas in Siberia

Eric Frei · 29th December 2010, 08:04 AM

Do you think that if Australia were to totally cease any CO2 emittance it would make any difference to the global CO2 ppm count?

The whole problem is how emissions are calculated.

Quote:

Australian emissions are presently monitored on a production rather than a consumption basis

We dig up and sell coal but we cop the CO2 count for another country burning it, fair eh. We do not cop the CO2 count for products (like cars) imported, the manufacturer does. Are you getting this? It means that raw materials are penalised and production not .... a stupid system that hurts our mining industry and makes us look like real big polluters.

But that is not how the rest of the world measures it. This list on Wiki shows global polluters in order, but hey, from their own site it says .....

Quote:

The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture

Anyone will tell you that to manage something you need to measure it first, and we do not have a globally fair method of such. That comes first, a consistent and fair measurement tool that is reasonably accurate.

Now lets look at two opposite arguments economically and from a CO2 point of view. Australia mines and sells coal vs Brazil harvests and sells trees.

Why shouldn't it be that the only CO2 figures are those that are used for the process and once the item (coal or wood) leaves the respective country's shores (or is consumed within the country) their CO2 figure is final?

If China burns our coal then that is their CO2 count, if China buys the lumber and makes furniture then that is their CO2 count. That to me is the fairest system but we see proposals for the consumer to bear the cost of the CO2, in other words you buy the dining suite (made in China from Brazilian lumber) you cop the count ..... how stupid is that! The counter argument is the high consuming richer nations wear the CO2 count and control their consumption, but can you by purchasing a product control the manufacturing of it and how "green" the manufacturer is? I doubt it.

And these are simple arguments that never get resolved, no-one, the primary industry, manufacturer or consumer want to carry the dirty bag.

Darrell Mcleod · 29th December 2010, 08:50 AM

My quick view – the world is quickly choking itself to death
The politicians or ‘leaders’ tsk tsk have no real solutions
A measure of economic performance in the US was and maybe still is new house starts
When will the world realise our planet is finite and the people on it agree we need to decrease population
Here in Oz we take on many immigrants as a means of offsetting future baby boomers pensions etc
Decrease population to a sustainable level whilst increasing economic growth is a challenge
Look at the waste both public and personal – do we need executives earning many millions of dollars
Do we need to drive $100,000 plus motor vehicles?
The east coast of Oz for now is out of drought – how long that will last who knows
How much did the water purification plant built in Queensland cost and the desalination plant in Victoria which cannot be ecologically sound may go the same way
I really believe we have too many people on this planet and really few are interested or looking at that
I heard global warming means the tropics are shifting down – are the polar ice caps receding?
Where is all this water right now coming from and what will happen next year and the year after?

Eric Frei · 29th December 2010, 02:57 PM

The largest factor about population is the Chinese practice birth control and the Indian's do not, they breed like rabbits.

The solution is to cool the planet, even if CO2 is not the culprit causing it.

Reducing heat, why do I still see dark roof tiles? Why are houses in Brisbane built with no eaves? Why are air-conditioners replacing large open plan living/open windows and fans?

Seems to me that common sense gets thrown away for quick profit, easier to build a house without eaves and you can get them a lot closer to each other in the cookie cutter suburbs.

There's many factors, pollution is one.

I really doubt much will change in my life time as a totally new way of thinking is required which also means economically with huge profit not being the driving force of business success. Building in rapid obsolescence with inferior or low quality product is what is happening, it drives the market for replacing it. Build a toaster that doesn't break down and last 30 years and you might do yourself out of business.

Global warming, and it certainly is (regardless of cause), is happening. If it continues and the worst happens, I assure you that share markets will still be there even if the Barrier Reef isn't. People and economies are not greatly affected by this at all, and that is why not many care and argue so hard.

derwoodii · 30th December 2010, 06:39 PM

Seems a few camps have formed over this GW
Climate extremist, we're all gonna die.
Climate alarmist, 5 out of 6 billion are gonna die.
Climate don't care about it, give us 5 big mac n frys for the wife n kids.
Climate GW skeptic. I like it how it is.
Climate GW deniers. I liked it how it was.

I hopin that peak oil will just kick in slowly so our massive consumption will slow thus drawing down our massive carbon output while we all change over to a whatever energy source n live happy ever after.

“ The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.”

I am not for any gumnut lever pullin such as carbon trade or caps they are as doomed any other Gumnut attempts to control markets are and have been. Enterprise ,markets and economies react and adapt faster than any policy or tax and new tech & skills will rise faster if they keep their hands off.

“There is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prosper under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.”

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Prince 1514

Eric Frei · 30th December 2010, 07:08 PM

That's a very good quote!

derwoodii · 30th December 2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

That's a very good quote!

Ta, Machiavelli was on the ball in 1514. I failed to add the author of the environment quote was Herman E. Daly. I heard that in about 1981 from a hairy hippie in Byron Bay who just read his book Steady-State Economics.

Once we have replaced the basic premise of “more is better” with the much sounder axiom that “enough is best,” the social and technical problems of moving to a steady state become solvable, perhaps even trivial.

But

it will probably take a Great Ecological Spasm to convince people that something is wrong with an economic theory that denies the very possibility of an economy exceeding its optimal scale. H E Daley 1977.

Eric Frei · 23rd March 2011, 10:42 AM

Protests in Melbourne over Gillards carbon tax.

Carbon tax protesters rally in Melbourne | Herald Sun

Quote:

March 23, 2011
HUNDREDS of protesters against the carbon tax are expected to march from Federation Square to Parliament House in Melbourne this morning.

The rally, organized by the group “No to Carbon Tax”, will be held at the same time as another rally descending on Parliament House in Canberra.

Organiser Tony Hooper said the rally was organized because many Victorians who could not travel to Canberra still wanted their voice heard.

“It is Australian families who will bear the brunt of this tax on everything that will do nothing,” he said.

At the rally, speakers Les Twentyman OAM and Bernie Finn will address the crowds.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has come under fire in the past month over the controversial carbon tax, after she broke an election promise to introduce the policy.

But I think Graham Kraehe of BlueScope Steel hits the nail on the head very well.

Tax will send our emissions offshore | Courier Mail

Quote:

March 23, 2011
AT last a major business figure has come out with a blistering attack on the insane stupidity of Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

Graham Kraehe will of course be labelled and libelled as speaking for one of the "big polluters" - he's chairman of Bluescope Steel.

Obviously on one level, he is "speaking his book", but that's also in part precisely why his critique is so meaningful. He is right at the, excuse the term, coal face of the impact of the proposed tax.

Kraehe knows that the Government's policy will decimate the manufacturing industry in Australia, and in particular, mean the death of our steel industry.

Even if he is "speaking his book", it is the substance of his comments which are simply undeniable. That a unilateral carbon tax as proposed by the Gillard Government would first, seriously hurt Australia, and hurt Australia, secondly, to absolutely no point in its stated intention of cutting so-called "carbon pollution". It will simply send those carbon dioxide emissions and the jobs offshore.

Indeed, the tax will almost certainly increase CO2 emissions as the production shifts to countries less efficient than Australia.

The great weight of Kraehe's speech to the National Press Club yesterday was in his merging of the carbon tax and its devastating impact with our China-driven resources boom.

He was both subtle and damning in highlighting the two-speed economy. Manufacturing already under siege because of the boom would now be whacked with the tax.

For Bluescope, a tax on carbon (dioxide) produced in steel making was fine as long as the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, Russians, Brazilians, and others had a similar tax, he said.

In short, all that would be achieved would be to destroy an industry in Australia, and the CO2 emissions would simply be transferred to another country. Worse, because our steel industry was extremely energy efficient, offshoring our steel production would actually increase global CO2 emissions, and when the resources boom ended, as all booms did, what then?

Going where no other mainstream business figure has gone and exposing them and shaming them in the process Kraehe clinically dismantled the Government's utterly dishonest claims. Especially about China.

Australian steelmake emissions of CO2 totalled 17 million tonnes year. China's increased steelmake was producing an additional one BILLION tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Then there was China's power industry. It was "disingenuous and misleading (for the government) to focus on the closure of a few excessively (really) dirty power stations," he said.

Translated: Prime Minister Gillard, you are deliberately lying to mislead Australians.

China had a coal-fired power sector 13 times the size of Australia and between now and 2020 was planning to increase it by 60 per cent!

It was an powerful and indeed brave speech from Kraehe, as this is a vindicative government that seeks to punish those in the business community that don't toe the line.

It also shames his fellow leading business colleagues who have variously been cowed by the government or sought favors by toadying up to it.

Or like many in the financial services sector that can see money to be made in trading carbon in the new world. While being either indifferent to the industry corpses on which their profits would be made or simply too stupid to understand that. Or both.

derwoodii · 23rd March 2011, 10:34 PM

I believe in man made GW, I don't believe that Gumnut can change it by any form of policy... why?
Cus they are addressing the problem from the wrong end of the dog, heres an example.

Its a refrigerator with out a door, chuggin away suckin down Kilowatts 24/7.
You'll see these all over the country dispensing fast food n drink.

This is just nuts, imaging leaving your home fridge door open 24/7
Its existence am told by our current Environment minister is Ok ?? wrote him a letter.
Its inefficient operation supported by our business tax system. Burn it deduct it
Its supported by demand for quick easy life style.
So chugg away they go showin we don't care, its coolin air to 2 c while the heat exchanger puts out 32 c heat into the shop, so they put on the air con to cool the shop. So we can get easy a crap double rapped sandwich n a can..
Its over looked as an issue while they pretend to tackle perceived big issues, u pick the low fruit 1st
Rather than lookin to reduce consumption. Rather than helpin put doors on fridges or finding more efficient use of power. Gumnuts addiction to GDP will keep burning kilowatts / carbon.

A fridge with no door, a metaphor for why Gumnut will not succeed in managing the planets ill health. And why we are dooming our kids to a miserable hot future.

Eric Frei · 23rd March 2011, 10:47 PM

Supermarkets have isles of them, not a door anymore in sight, the whole length of the store some 100m of fridge.

No wonder they're easy pickin's for shows like Today Tonight to test the temperature and they're way over up to 10C growing bacteria in the food you buy.

We are governed by fools.

Up here, houses stopped having eves, windows got smaller, fans are non existent and air conditioner installers cannot keep up .... so much for open plan breezy living and engineering to the environment.

Eric Frei · 23rd March 2011, 11:43 PM

It certainly heated up at the protest, seems Bob Brown got his nose out of joint.

Brown 'appalled' by anti-carbon tax banners - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

Greens leader Bob Brown says he hopes the Opposition Leader apologises to the Prime Minister for speaking at an anti-carbon tax rally in front of "offensive banners".

Protesters at the rally outside Parliament House held placards with slogans like "ditch the witch", with one banner labelling Julia Gillard as "Bob Brown's bitch".

Tony Abbott addressed the group of about 3,000 people in front of the placards, and told the crowd they did not look like environmental vandals or scientific heretics.

He said he did believe that humans were contributing to climate change, but that the current debate was a matter of political honesty.

"There are a lot of diverse opinions about climate change," he said.

"Climate change happens, mankind does make a contribution. It is important to have an intelligent response - not a stupid one."

Senator Brown has written to Ms Gillard saying he was appalled that Mr Abbott spoke in front of such offensive banners.

"I am appalled by the photos of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues speaking in front of Parliament House today in front of some most offensive banners," Senator Brown's letter said.

"I know that you have broad shoulders. However, from my own experience, I also know that such calumny, apparently endorsed by hundreds of other people present, can be deeply hurtful.

"I hope Mr Abbott apologises. However, if not, I extend to you a heartfelt apology on behalf of the many people in Australia who think differently."

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said some people in the rally crowd were extremists.

"We had the Lavoisier group - a group which, as one commentator points out, warned the Kyoto protocol was part of a new imperial structure that would relocate Australian sovereignty to Germany," he said.

dingo · 27th March 2011, 06:42 PM

I did geography at school and alot of the subject matter was ecosystems, weathersystems and we learnt about the carbon cycle. We learnt that all these systems are finely tuned and dependant on each other. If you start breaking pieces here and there eventually the consequences can be quite severe but normally in a different location. Once its done its done... Theres no doubt about it any carbon trading scheme or offset plan will just end up being a corrupted rort, there are already snouts at the trough waiting for a feed.

Im no ragin greenie but I find on this issue their heart is in the right place, the future of the planet is at stake, species do face extinction, humans are going to find obtaining food and water increasingly difficult to come by and it will be our collective fault.

my two cents

Eric Frei · 27th March 2011, 08:04 PM

There has to be a global commitment, but emerging industrial economies argue they haven't fulfilled their pollution quota yet .... it's a valid point.

Per head of capita Australian's are one of the highest if not the highest polluters. So extrapolate that out for say India or China and they have a long way to go to catch up.

Now with radiation leaks in Japan the new clear (nuclear) energy source also has a big black cloud above it.... 20,000 years half life, not sure why they use half life when it's full life we need to remember.

I wonder how well they'll go reversing the effects of that compared to carbon?

What about the consequences compared to CO2?

Lots of head scratching going on.

Eric Frei · 28th March 2011, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

Seems that there's a net loss from trees en masse.

Thinking outside the box means planting more trees in vulnerable areas means CO2 loss.

Tree-Killing Hurricanes Could Contribute To Global Warming

Quote:

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2009) — A first-of-its kind, long-term study of hurricane impact on U.S. trees shows that hurricane damage can diminish a forest’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming, from the atmosphere. Tulane University researchers from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology examined the impact of tropical cyclones on U.S. forests from 1851–2000 and found that changes in hurricane frequency might contribute to global warming.

The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and release it when they die -- either from old age or from trauma, such as hurricanes. The annual amount of carbon dioxide a forest removes from the atmosphere is determined by the ratio of tree growth to tree mortality each year.

When trees are destroyed en masse by hurricanes, not only will there be fewer trees in the forest to absorb greenhouse gases, but forests could eventually become emitters of carbon dioxide, warming the climate. And other studies, notes Tulane ecologist Jeff Chambers, indicate that hurricanes will intensify with a warming climate.

“If landfalling hurricanes become more intense or more frequent in the future, tree mortality and damage exceeding 50 million tons of tree biomass per year would result in a net carbon loss from U.S. forest ecosystems,” says Chambers.

The study, which was led by Tulane postdoctoral research associate Hongcheng Zeng, establishes an important baseline to evaluate changes in the frequency and intensity of future landfalling hurricanes.

Using field measurements, satellite image analyses, and empirical models to evaluate forest and carbon cycle impacts, the researchers established that an average of 97 million trees have been affected each year for the past 150 years over the entire United States, resulting in a 53-million ton annual biomass loss and an average carbon release of 25 million tons. Forest impacts were primarily located in Gulf Coast areas, particularly southern Texas and Louisiana and south Florida, while significant impacts also occurred in eastern North Carolina.

Chambers compares the data from this study to a 2007 study that showed that a single storm – Hurricane Katrina -- destroyed nearly 320 million trees with a total biomass loss equivalent to 50–140 percent of the net annual U.S. carbon sink in forest trees.

“The bottom line,” says Chambers, “is that any sustained increase in hurricane tree biomass loss above 50 million tons would potentially undermine our efforts to reduce human fossil fuel carbon emissions.”

Study contributors include Tulane lab researchers Robinson Negrón-Juárez and David Baker; George Hurtt of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire; and Mark Powell at the Hurricane Research Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For more information contact Tulane’s Office of Public Relations.

This is just one council and their crews, doesn't include private contractors and other regions/councils 6 weeks after cyclone Yasi.

The Townsville chainsaw massacre - ABC North Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Quote:

23 March, 2011
Six weeks and more than 400,000 cubic metres of green waste later, Townsville council workers are just about finished their cyclone Yasi clean up.

Since cyclone Yasi council crews have chipped 208,000 cubic metres of mulch.

Eric Frei · 2nd April 2011, 09:37 AM

There's a poll on this news page, have a vote.

Victorian households face prices rises of $863 a year under the carbon tax | Herald Sun

derwoodii · 4th April 2011, 10:56 PM

Something that may explain a human part of the issue. Its a bit of a study and paper quote feast but maybe an echo of some reality.

There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and
exceptionalism

derwoodii · 11th April 2011, 09:38 PM

Ha, perhaps plants may show us a better way...

First Practical 'Artificial Leaf'

Debut of the first practical 'artificial leaf'

Scientists have claimed one of the milestones in the drive for sustainable energy -- development of the first practical artificial leaf. Speaking in Anaheim, California at the 241st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, they described an advanced solar cell the size of a poker card that mimics the process, called photosynthesis, that green plants use to convert sunlight and water into energy.
"Nature is powered by photosynthesis, and I think that the future world will be powered by photosynthesis as well in the form of this artificial leaf.

21st December 2009, 02:41 AM	#92
Bob Tooley Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: May 2009 Location: Scarborough, Maine USA Posts: 128	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I think I've said this before in an earlier post, but.... "nothing in nature happens fast",.... and much of the public's reactions come from Hollywood movies where the whole event has to happen before you get too bored to watch the rest of the movie,... and I think a number of these researchers are out to make a name for themselves and of course I'm sure the money is good. While figures point out mankind's contribution to the total damage-ratio, it fails to subtract the percentage attributed to the existence of man as a species. We are required to eat, breathe and eliminate wasted just as any other species, and those are all unavoidable issues regardless of cars, houses, manufacturing and other developments.... and this figure MUST be eliminated from the total figures before you can start looking at 'what can be reduced'. I'm not so worried about the idiots that stand up in front of people and make a complete ass of themselves as I am of the one's who will listen and follow them.. It also says we are on the verge of a new evolution within our own species.... a new species that doesn't even try to think for itself anymore..... Maybe we need more wars.....it eliminates people therefor it reduces the contribution to their portion of global warming...........

8th January 2010, 08:12 PM	#93
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Just ask all the freezing Poms if it's global warming or freezing. Since they walked out of Copenhagen the northern hemisphere is freezing over. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

8th January 2010, 10:09 PM	#94
Done it Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Australia. Posts: 784	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? No wonder, they took enough hot air up there. Did you see this? It's what I was saying months ago and it's only part of it. Nobody could figure the real amount. The Carbon Cost of Copenhagen 16,500 delegates from 192 countries, 5,000 journos and 40,000 eco-campaigners amounting to over 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, (roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006). The organisers laid 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals were served and visitors busily sipped over 200,000 cups of coffee. Cost of Copenhagen \| Bluegrass Consulting: Grassroots Public Affairs

15th May 2010, 04:59 AM	#100
chainsawland Sappling Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 14	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I don't know about world climate, but the climate is great here today. So lets keep the oil flowing in the Gulf of Mexico!

29th December 2010, 08:50 AM	#106
Darrell Mcleod Mature tree Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Victoria Australia Posts: 242	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? My quick view – the world is quickly choking itself to death The politicians or ‘leaders’ tsk tsk have no real solutions A measure of economic performance in the US was and maybe still is new house starts When will the world realise our planet is finite and the people on it agree we need to decrease population Here in Oz we take on many immigrants as a means of offsetting future baby boomers pensions etc Decrease population to a sustainable level whilst increasing economic growth is a challenge Look at the waste both public and personal – do we need executives earning many millions of dollars Do we need to drive $100,000 plus motor vehicles? The east coast of Oz for now is out of drought – how long that will last who knows How much did the water purification plant built in Queensland cost and the desalination plant in Victoria which cannot be ecologically sound may go the same way I really believe we have too many people on this planet and really few are interested or looking at that I heard global warming means the tropics are shifting down – are the polar ice caps receding? Where is all this water right now coming from and what will happen next year and the year after?

29th December 2010, 02:57 PM	#107
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? The largest factor about population is the Chinese practice birth control and the Indian's do not, they breed like rabbits. The solution is to cool the planet, even if CO2 is not the culprit causing it. Reducing heat, why do I still see dark roof tiles? Why are houses in Brisbane built with no eaves? Why are air-conditioners replacing large open plan living/open windows and fans? Seems to me that common sense gets thrown away for quick profit, easier to build a house without eaves and you can get them a lot closer to each other in the cookie cutter suburbs. There's many factors, pollution is one. I really doubt much will change in my life time as a totally new way of thinking is required which also means economically with huge profit not being the driving force of business success. Building in rapid obsolescence with inferior or low quality product is what is happening, it drives the market for replacing it. Build a toaster that doesn't break down and last 30 years and you might do yourself out of business. Global warming, and it certainly is (regardless of cause), is happening. If it continues and the worst happens, I assure you that share markets will still be there even if the Barrier Reef isn't. People and economies are not greatly affected by this at all, and that is why not many care and argue so hard. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

30th December 2010, 06:39 PM	#108
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 407	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Seems a few camps have formed over this GW Climate extremist, we're all gonna die. Climate alarmist, 5 out of 6 billion are gonna die. Climate don't care about it, give us 5 big mac n frys for the wife n kids. Climate GW skeptic. I like it how it is. Climate GW deniers. I liked it how it was. I hopin that peak oil will just kick in slowly so our massive consumption will slow thus drawing down our massive carbon output while we all change over to a whatever energy source n live happy ever after. “ The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.” I am not for any gumnut lever pullin such as carbon trade or caps they are as doomed any other Gumnut attempts to control markets are and have been. Enterprise ,markets and economies react and adapt faster than any policy or tax and new tech & skills will rise faster if they keep their hands off. “There is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prosper under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.” Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince 1514 Last edited by derwoodii; 30th December 2010 at 07:10 PM.

30th December 2010, 07:08 PM	#109
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? That's a very good quote! __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

23rd March 2011, 10:34 PM	#112
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 407	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I believe in man made GW, I don't believe that Gumnut can change it by any form of policy... why? Cus they are addressing the problem from the wrong end of the dog, heres an example. Its a refrigerator with out a door, chuggin away suckin down Kilowatts 24/7. You'll see these all over the country dispensing fast food n drink. This is just nuts, imaging leaving your home fridge door open 24/7 Its existence am told by our current Environment minister is Ok ?? wrote him a letter. Its inefficient operation supported by our business tax system. Burn it deduct it Its supported by demand for quick easy life style. So chugg away they go showin we don't care, its coolin air to 2 c while the heat exchanger puts out 32 c heat into the shop, so they put on the air con to cool the shop. So we can get easy a crap double rapped sandwich n a can.. Its over looked as an issue while they pretend to tackle perceived big issues, u pick the low fruit 1st Rather than lookin to reduce consumption. Rather than helpin put doors on fridges or finding more efficient use of power. Gumnuts addiction to GDP will keep burning kilowatts / carbon. A fridge with no door, a metaphor for why Gumnut will not succeed in managing the planets ill health. And why we are dooming our kids to a miserable hot future. Attached Thumbnails

23rd March 2011, 10:47 PM	#113
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Supermarkets have isles of them, not a door anymore in sight, the whole length of the store some 100m of fridge. No wonder they're easy pickin's for shows like Today Tonight to test the temperature and they're way over up to 10C growing bacteria in the food you buy. We are governed by fools. Up here, houses stopped having eves, windows got smaller, fans are non existent and air conditioner installers cannot keep up .... so much for open plan breezy living and engineering to the environment. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

27th March 2011, 06:42 PM	#115
dingo Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: sydney Posts: 67	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I did geography at school and alot of the subject matter was ecosystems, weathersystems and we learnt about the carbon cycle. We learnt that all these systems are finely tuned and dependant on each other. If you start breaking pieces here and there eventually the consequences can be quite severe but normally in a different location. Once its done its done... Theres no doubt about it any carbon trading scheme or offset plan will just end up being a corrupted rort, there are already snouts at the trough waiting for a feed. Im no ragin greenie but I find on this issue their heart is in the right place, the future of the planet is at stake, species do face extinction, humans are going to find obtaining food and water increasingly difficult to come by and it will be our collective fault. my two cents

27th March 2011, 08:04 PM	#116
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? There has to be a global commitment, but emerging industrial economies argue they haven't fulfilled their pollution quota yet .... it's a valid point. Per head of capita Australian's are one of the highest if not the highest polluters. So extrapolate that out for say India or China and they have a long way to go to catch up. Now with radiation leaks in Japan the new clear (nuclear) energy source also has a big black cloud above it.... 20,000 years half life, not sure why they use half life when it's full life we need to remember. I wonder how well they'll go reversing the effects of that compared to carbon? What about the consequences compared to CO2? Lots of head scratching going on. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

2nd April 2011, 09:37 AM	#118
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Would you be happy to pay $16.60 a week in carbon tax? There's a poll on this news page, have a vote. Victorian households face prices rises of $863 a year under the carbon tax \| Herald Sun __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

11th April 2011, 09:38 PM	#120
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 407	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Ha, perhaps plants may show us a better way... First Practical 'Artificial Leaf' Debut of the first practical 'artificial leaf' Scientists have claimed one of the milestones in the drive for sustainable energy -- development of the first practical artificial leaf. Speaking in Anaheim, California at the 241st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, they described an advanced solar cell the size of a poker card that mimics the process, called photosynthesis, that green plants use to convert sunlight and water into energy. "Nature is powered by photosynthesis, and I think that the future world will be powered by photosynthesis as well in the form of this artificial leaf.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Colder climate diesel tree variant	Grits	Ask an Arborist here	7	26th March 2011 08:22 AM
Timing belt change	clementine	Non Tree Related chat	20	12th January 2009 12:41 PM
Altering climate affecting your pruning?	blair duncanson	General Tree Chat	22	18th April 2008 05:08 AM
Global Warming	OsAGe85	Non Tree Related chat	11	12th August 2007 12:44 PM