Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 30th May 2011, 06:51
  #7921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,258
Meanwhile: Is Britain about to run out of (hot) air:

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

Reminds me of the old English Farming Song what I learnt when I was a nipper in deepest Shropshire,( "oh arr, oh arr, me beauty "):

"Gather thee subsidies whilst you can,
for data is fickle in the hands of man,
talk up the drought,
talk up the plague
talk up disaster, and wait for the aid.........."

( With apologies to A E Houseman)

Last edited by wiggy; 30th May 2011 at 07:11.
wiggy is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 08:17
  #7922 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,840
to cite the more infamous. Green is the new Red.
The term for them is "watermelons", green on the outside but red on the inside.
ORAC is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 11:20
  #7923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Chucks:

"I think that it is a bit rich for such purple prose as this to be presented as evidence that the people using basic science to show evidence of climate change (not "AGW" as you like to put it) are unreasonable. "

You seem to be missing a fairly important point. Climate changes. That's what climate does. Climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years. It will continue to change. You can pour the entire gross product of the developed nations into the dunny. It won't prevent climate change. "Climate change" is the sun rising in the east. Send your money to me if you want to prevent it.
Yamagata ken is online now  
Old 30th May 2011, 11:43
  #7924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Yes, but, Ken-san!

"How fast?" is what we are wrestling with here, I think. The rate due to increasing CO2 is a bit too snappy for many natural processes to withstand, perhaps. That sort of thing is what we are disputing here. Well, me at least!
chuks is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 12:40
  #7925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Chucks. Thanks for being reasonable. I really hate fights, I'm slow, and need to sit in the backroom. I'm doing the horrible "argument from authority" thing here. The "rate of change" claim belongs in the dunny along with "unprecedented...", "the science is settled", and "your money belongs in my wallet". The rate of change argument relies on NASA/GISS adjusting the past 150 years of instrumental data to fit their theory, and to ignore the ice core record. The data do not support theory. I will post supporting evidence, but not tonight: the wine is upon me.
Yamagata ken is online now  
Old 30th May 2011, 12:41
  #7926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
The term for them is "watermelons", green on the outside but red on the inside.
Brilliant!
barit1 is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 13:06
  #7927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
.


Lets not ferget the real reason just why all this 'carbon' hysteria has been whipped up. A former Oz politician gives a hint...

"...I am also presently involved with a large carbon credit trader that is in the process, even in this recessed economy , of hiring some 2000 new staff..." John Hewson.

...

A CARBON ECONOMY | Open Forum | Independent public policy think-tank, blogs & forums | openforum.com.au






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 15:15
  #7928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Quote:
The term for them is "watermelons", green on the outside but red on the inside.
Brilliant!
Brilliant? Not really barit1 and hardly original either

Search - watermelons "green on the outside"

About 764,000 results
And old news even in the local melon patch..........

Search - watermelons "green on the outside" siteprune.org

23 results
MattGray is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 15:39
  #7929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Lets not ferget the real reason just why all this 'carbon' hysteria has been whipped up. A former Oz politician gives a hint...

"...I am also presently involved with a large carbon credit trader that is in the process, even in this recessed economy , of hiring some 2000 new staff..." John Hewson.

...
It smacks of absolute desperation flying binghi when one has to resort to such an over the top and outstanding example of selective quoting to 100% completely misrepresent the position of someone who is a respected contributer to this issue.

What the former Liberal leader John Hewson actually said (in the link you provided) - and it was back in 2009 was this -

I start with the proposition that in a true carbon economy, where everyone understands their carbon footprint and is working to reduce it, and where the government's target is something realistic like a 40% reduction by 2020 towards a 90% reduction by 2050, the introduction of a relatively "pure" market based ETS will be substantially positive in terms of growth and employment. The debate and onus of proof should therefore concentrate on just how positive.

Being involved with the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development for many years, six years as Chairman, and that Forum having brought the likes of Al Gore to Australia some five years ago in an attempt to stimulate debate on climate matters (alas somewhat ahead of our time), I became frustrated with the paucity of the business interest and skepticism and decided to get involved with a number of New Age climate response industries to satisfy myself of the significant and profitable(in time) business opportunities that would inevitably flow from an appropriate national response to the challenge of climate change.

I was, and in some cases am still, involved with the early development of alternative technologies for the treatment of household waste, energy efficient lightbulbs, biofuels including the building of the largest biodiesel plant in the world, and green data centres , as well with as a host of proposed new technologies and businesses. I am also presently involved with a large carbon credit trader that is in the process, even in this recessed economy , of hiring some 2000 new staff in relation to its installation of home efficiency packages.

In every case the economic growth and employment consequences were substantial, and my limited experiences are just the tip of the iceberg of what I firmly believe will be a technological revolution, which will lead to a substantially new and significant industrial base to our economy.

The opportunity is there for us to grasp, or lose!

There are interesting parallels with the protection debate of the 80s and early 90s. The "old guard" industries lobbied governments to sustain or increase their tariff and other forms of protection, threatening dire growth, trade and employment consequences if they weren't listened to.

True, some of these protected industries declined and, in some cases, disappeared, but only to be replaced by new ones, to the extent that our economy went into probably the longest period of sustained growth with historically low unemployment.

The point is that our present industrial structure and lifestyle is unsustainable. The challenge is how we most effectively make the transition to a "carbon economy" and maximize our long tern economic, business and lifestyle opportunities.

We simply must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, dramatically improve our energy, soil, water and transport efficiencies, reduce our carbon emissions wherever possible, by developing new, more carbon efficient ways of doing things.

In these terms, we can learn much from the protection and other past debates particularly, I believe, about the most effective ways to cushion and facilitate the essential industrial transition with appropriate financial support, re training, etc, where perhaps it wasn't done as well as it could have been in the past.

We also have a significant opportunity to lead the world in the development of some of these technologies with considerable export possibilities, the most obvious being clean coal technologies- but to refer back to my own experience, we are already doing it with alternative waste technologies.

The transition must be made. Time is of the essence! It's not an issue where we can hope to play catch up! It's not an issue that can be fobbed off to someone else's watch!

Unfortunately, the climate change debate to date does not adequately reflect this inevitability, this urgency. Indeed, it's dominated by blatant, short term vested interests and political game playing of the worst kind.

We all have an economic, social and a moral responsibility to do better!
MattGray is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 16:01
  #7930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
For a really good example of skewed reporting by the press and total misrepresentation by academia involved in the climate change scam here's an extract from the last edition of the Fremantle Herald:

Reporter Brendan Foster

"The climate commision report, Critical Decade, said the west coast would be one of the worst hit with sea levels rising by eight millimetres over the century.

Professor Chari Pattiaratchi from the University of Western Australia's Ocean Institute say a one metre rise in sea levels would drown a 100m strip of coast.

'Most of Fremantle and the Fishing Boat Harbour would be under water,' he told the Herald. 'In some cases you will find the sea level rise will be more than one metre.' "

My bolding. The expert then goes on to stir up the scare campaign for householders living in these areas carefully avoiding the fact that most of Fremantle is situated on low lying hills which wouldn't get wet if all the bloody ice melted.

So how come a government propaganda sheet says 8mm and the supposed 'expert' then claims 1 metre? And, it would appear, the trainee reporter didn't pick up the inconsistencies.

Smoke and bloody mirrors from a government which has lost the confidence of the people.
sisemen is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 17:00
  #7931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
BBC News - Global carbon emissions reach record, says IAE

Or if you want a more dramatic interpretation:

Highest greenhouse gas emissions in history push global warming towards 'dangerous' levels | Mail Online

And here I am, still using my central heating in the South UK, at the end of May. Never done that before.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 18:12
  #7932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
And here I am, still using my central heating in the South UK, at the end of May. Never done that before.
Christ, apart from an hour here and there, maybe 3 hours total, ours has been off for almost 2 months!!


Matt

You kinda got a bit of an own goal there. His own words are he got involved in the business side of the greenie hysteria and he would not have done that unless he was getting a cut himself. The policies of these people have spawned a whole new set of industries making gazillions and most of that money comes from the taxpayer through handouts from the gov. Add in enough hysteria and people will pay through the nose for things to "be green" and "mind their carbon footprint" (whilst ignoring their true "footprint") and those who do not end up paying through their taxes and through higher costs due to things like "subsidies" for solar power which is passed on through their electric bills. People like your beloved Liberal MP have been actively encouraging spiv-like behaviour, and are fully involved in it for their own benefit, based on a flawed "science" which has not been, and can not be, actually "proven" due to the gaping holes in the "science" itself.

Sorry, Binghi is 100% right on this.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 18:19
  #7933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Pulse1

Highest greenhouse gas emissions in history
Global carbon emissions reach record

Nice scary headlines, BUT, and it's a frikking HUGE "BUT", how do they know? What is their definition of "history"? After all, how long have they been able to ACCURATELY measure the levels of CO² in the atmosphere?

In other words, those with a vested interest in keeping the panic going have decided to release some sort of figure to get the sheeple back on their side....



(PS. Not a dig at you, you're only the messenger. I understand that)
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 20:15
  #7934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
And here I am, still using my central heating in the South UK, at the end of May. Never done that before.
chuffing cold here too, just went to put the rubbish out and a could see my breath
stuckgear is offline  
Old 31st May 2011, 06:09
  #7935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Some data

Temperature change from the instrument record. This is hadcrut data from 1888 on-. It shows warming from about 1910 to 1940. Cooling from 1940-1970, warming from 1970 to 1998, then cooling. The two cooling-warming cycles are essentially indistinguishable in rate and duration. The first cycle is supposed to be "natural", i.e. before elevated CO2 levels. The second cycle allegedly can only be explained as a result of CO2 forcing.

The trend lines simply demonstrate how easy it is to cherry pick a subset of data to demonstrate whatever you want.



Prior to the instrument record, the best proxies are from ice cores. The following data are from GISP2, the Greenland ice sheet project. You can download the data from NOAA here;

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._alley2000.txt

Going back 12,000 years of the current Holocene interglacial we can see that temperatures peaked at about 8,000 BP, and have been cooling ever since. I've marked the RWP and MWP. Temperature has been increasing since the little ice age minimum in the 1700s, so any subset of data since then will show a warming trend. No CO2 increase needed to give the warming. The 20th Century warming would add about 0.8C to the end of the trace. Nothing unprecedented there.



Going to 50Ka BP gives a good picture of the magnitude and rate of climate variability during the last glacial. Note particularly the Bølling/Allerød interstadial, and Younger Dryas at around 15-12,000 Ka BP. All perfectly natural variation, not caused by CO2.



Here I have very crudely divided difference in temperature by difference in time for the same data intervals to give a rate of change. Again note the Bølling/Allerød interstadial, and Younger Dryas.



I have a big problem working out how the IPCC reach their conclusions from this, and a mass of other similar data.
Yamagata ken is online now  
Old 31st May 2011, 07:23
  #7936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
It is in print that David Cameron and his Father in Law have invested heavily in wind farm projects. Shame they haven't had the foresight to invest heavily in Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.

Here is a clue to the direction Cameron and his cronies should be aiming at.

Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years | Popular Science
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 31st May 2011, 07:48
  #7937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
Chuks As ridiculous as this statement may seem; nature makes a mockery of 'basic science' and laughs at complex math....but nobody will believe me

I agree with Robyn and I was perhaps the first here to talk about population and resource control...there so much unspeakable evil out there...Hay muchisimas ratas y culebras

being in NY I watch civil liberities eroded under the guise of 'liberalism'...but it's much more sinister than that...first step, of course rid the world of the undesirables...as was done before in time..only this time in a much more furtively surreptitious manner...
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 31st May 2011, 11:26
  #7938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Lets not ferget the real reason just why all this 'carbon' hysteria has been whipped up. A former Oz politician gives a hint...

"...I am also presently involved with a large carbon credit trader that is in the process, even in this recessed economy , of hiring some 2000 new staff..." John Hewson.

via MattGray:
It smacks of absolute desperation flying binghi when one has to resort to such an over the top and outstanding example of selective quoting to 100% completely misrepresent the position of someone who is a respected contributer to this issue.
MattGray, yer kidding aint ya..








.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 31st May 2011, 11:27
  #7939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Say what?

Is there another sort of surreptitious than the furtive? Just asking, mind you....

Science and math are simply tools we use to try and understand the world. I do not see them being laughed at, really. People with some fixed point of view, though, yes, they may well want to laugh at some notion that doesn't agree with their own. That is not my problem; I just went for studying these things as a way to widen my knowledge, including knowledge of human folly, as if working in the oil business hadn't given that the Cinemascope treatment already.

You guys do not want to think about changing our present way of life and you justify that, in part, by inventing some vast conspiracy, a Mafia-like gang of low-minded, greedy scientists and others who are out to profiteer from some made-up facts about "AGW" as you call it. Well, perhaps, perhaps... but it seems far more likely to me that we are making some trouble for ourselves with what we are doing.

Time will tell, but one side in this argument comes off looking foolish, in denial and short-sighted.

I was just touring in Maine, when I came across the absolute fact of sperm whale oil having hit $2 per barrel, when mineral oil came to the fore. It wasn't a case of Greenpeace stepping in to make Mr and Mrs Middle care about the poor old whales but just the cost of the whale oil. I wonder what will replace mineral oil, and why....

Meanwhile, you seem to have won, nobody from the other side even bothering to argue their point. Do continue this victory lap of the stadium, waving to the crowd, until the lights go out.
chuks is offline  
Old 31st May 2011, 11:40
  #7940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Ah, yes. The high integrity of climate science..









Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming | Watts Up With That?







.
Flying Binghi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.