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 7th Jun 2011, 04:34
  #7981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
Ain't that the truth Slasher. And what's more annoying, to boot, is that we no longer have a politics thread where we can comment on it on threat of a permanent ban if anyone tries to resurrect a politics thread or even contribute to such a thread!

It's a real shame considering how much is happening in Oz politics at the moment with a dysfunctional government that needs every avenue to bring it to account. And the proposed carbon tax is only one of the cock ups!
sisemen is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 06:17
  #7982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Not long finished watching Wayne Swan, Aust Treasurer speaking at national Press Club in Canberra.

Notes;

1) Kept referring to Aust having the worst "per capita" pollution for carbon. Which, considering 7.5 million sq kilometer land mass / 20 million population, mainly on the east coast fringe, makes the statement a nonesense.

2) Kept referring to carbon tax saving the Murray/ Darling food bowl, (which the greens are trying to kill by taking water from the irrigators), Kakadu, which is as green as it will ever get considering it's in a tropical high rainfall Territory, and saving The Great Barrier Reef, which we are told is being killed by solar influences, but at odds with the "fact" that sea levels are rising, if you believe the propaganda, and will therefor submerge it out of harms way.

3) Kept refreing to most of our trading partners having a carbon tax of some sort despite only the EU being involved. Also failed to mention USA and China, most of Asia and South America, don't.

4) Admitted the carbon tax (with a nomilal value of $20, will be re-named a carbon trading scheme after 12 months and prices will be at market demand. Refused to elaborate on other "models" costed at greater values

5) failed to answer the question satisfactorily that considering our "elected" minority government has power by virtue of a lie, "there will be no carbon tax", wouldn't it be better to wait another 12 months after it's introduction for her to get a mandate via an election.

6) Said there is no time to loose, can't wait another 12 months, despite our previous and assasinated, (equally inept Labor) PM, putting the whole thing on hold indefinently after the Copenhagen debacle failed to gain any concensus.

7) Spent 75% of the time claiming the Opposition is running a scare mongering campaign, but denying telling pensioners the seas are rising and they will probably drown, (in 100 years time), was scaremongering.

8) Failed to address the energy future needs and told lies about an emerging alternative energy factor in establishing figures which show we will be richer by paying an extra tax in perpetuity.

Conclusion;

This treasurer lacks any sort of credibility as does his partners in crime who all come from the school of socialist agendas in the Unions including one front bencher who's socialist mother-in-law happens to be The Union apppointed Governor General of the Country.

This government is the problem, not the solution.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 07:01
  #7983 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
This is supposed to be a thread about the science of global warming not Australian politics so please stop contaminating it.
green granite is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 07:13
  #7984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
This is supposed to be a thread about the science of global warming not Australian politics so please stop contaminating it.
green granite, the 'global warming' nonsence is being pushed by politics, greed and hysteria. There's nothing "science" about it.






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 08:16
  #7985 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
I don't disagree with your statement Flying Binghi but as I said this thread is supposed to be about the science of GW. Perhaps we should have a separate thread for an indepth look at the politics of Global warning/climate change or what ever they call it today. I just don't want to see page after page of political dogma on here, however I'm really only a minor cog in the thread.
green granite is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 08:42
  #7986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Actually, GG, I think you're one of the more interesting posters in this thread.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 09:34
  #7987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Science is boring!

Well, it seems to be so for many here! The science of greenhouse gases is pretty straightforward, about as mysterious as, as, well, a greenhouse! Energy sails right past the outer shell in one form but is then trapped in another form. This might be science or it might be witchcraft but it certainly does occur.

For a real eye-opener, check out what is happening with Siberian permafrost now. Great chunks of the Siberian landscape are turning into mud and liberating a lot of methane as they thaw; methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. What does this mean, though? "Al Gore made this up," I guess.

The fun starts with the politics of science, interpreting the data, which is mostly what we can read about here. Not least, the anti-AGW crowd prefer to focus very narrowly on just one aspect of this, "warming," ignoring what the real fuss is about, rapid and increasingly rapid climate change.

It's a good thing that my wife pals around with a GP. If I read one more stupid post about "It snowed yesterday in XXX, the first time that has happened in quite a while, so I guess that disproves AGW, hur-hur!!!" then I may well start screaming and not stop until I get my Thorazine injection. Some places get warmer, some places get colder, just a tiny change in temperature can have profound effects... this is not something simple, unfortunately, so that attempting to discuss it in very simple terms is futile. Of course, simplicity sells, on both sides.
chuks is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 09:42
  #7988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Some places get warmer, some places get colder, just a tiny change in temperature can have profound effects... this is not something simple, unfortunately, so that attempting to discuss it in very simple terms is futile. Of course, simplicity sells, on both sides.
Sums it up!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 10:55
  #7989 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Actually, GG, I think you're one of the more interesting posters in this thread
Thank you Simonpro, not wishing to start a mutual admiration society, but I find yours full of interesting points which I can go away and think about and it helps my understanding of things. I have you down as a lukewarmer in the same vein as Judith Curry. (I have no objections to lukewarmers as they are happy to discuss science, as apposed to the Jones and Manns of this world who aren't prepared to it seems)
green granite is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 11:35
  #7990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
...For a real eye-opener, check out what is happening with Siberian permafrost now. Great chunks of the Siberian landscape are turning into mud and liberating a lot of methane as they thaw; methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. What does this mean, though? "Al Gore made this up," I guess.
Ho hum, old news.

AGAIN, we have just come out of a mini ice age. de worlds climate has been warming since we came out of the mini ice age in the mid 1800's. It would be expected that if we aint in a little ice age then it would be warmer... This is in part wot the hocky stick graph scam were all about. A couple of carbon muppet scientists needed to remove the warmer then today medieval warm period to 'proove' the models and that todays temperatures are warmer then normal - FAIL..


Here's wot yer would expect when the world is coming outa a mini ice age...

“… the Southern boundary of permafrost in Siberia is everywhere receding Northward. In 1837 this boundary, for example, ran somewhat South of the town of Mezen and was found to a depth of 2m. In 1933 the academy of Sciences Expedition found this boundary at the village of Semzha 40 km further North…”

This predates wot the IPCC claims fer human emitted CO2 affecting temps.

“Catastrophic” retreat of glaciers in Spitsbergen | Watts Up With That?



...ignoring what the real fuss is about, rapid and increasingly rapid climate change...
chuks, do try and come up with sumthin new fer fecks sake. The hysteria line has been done to death..








.






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 12:35
  #7991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Something new?

Gee, I thought this sort of thing, the permafrost melting, was something new! Not so, eh? "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, Yawn...."

So everything is okay then, except for a few dodgy scientists and their political allies stirring up "hysteria?" Well, okay, if you say so....
chuks is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 14:03
  #7992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Gee, I thought this sort of thing, the permafrost melting, was something new! Not so, eh? "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, Yawn...."

So everything is okay then, except for a few dodgy scientists and their political allies stirring up "hysteria?" Well, okay, if you say so....
chuks, for a start i would recomend reading WUWT.. Watts Up With That?






-----------------------------------------------
“The increasing shrillness of the message about global warming has about it a certain messianic flavour usually associated with religious faith rather than empirical or scientific knowledge” via “The Climate Caper”, Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 14:08
  #7993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
..as I said this thread is supposed to be about the science of GW. Perhaps we should have a separate thread...
Agreed green granite. Unforetunatly, as you probably recall, this thread actualy has the Australian AGW/AGW politics thread combined into it.

A seperate thread again over at DG+P is probably a good idea..






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 14:52
  #7994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
Chuks no one denies the GH effect

the absorbed IR energy balance to the emitted black body radiation defined in terms of total flux 'J' can indeed be computed by determining the radiation passing through a volume element 'A' in the interval dt in order to determine the heat energy passing to the earth

the difference in 'T' [as computed in the simplified assumption]... both with and without additional IR absorption from green house gases is defined as the greenhouse effect...but it says nothing [ and can say nothing]about how the heat is ultimately transacted...I think this is the last bit of smoke and mirrors left.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 16:50
  #7995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
On a side note, they've done one here which even I think is a good idea.

For the last year they have been installing solar panels on the "roof" of a rail tunnel beside the E19. Yesterday, the first "Zonnetrein" went up the line on a test run (despite the rain, kinda ironic).

Now, in my opinion, being able to use solar power to HELP to supply the electricity use of a rail network (they claim that this one will produce enough leccy in one year to provide a whole day's worth of transportation across the entire Belgian rail network, it's 16,000 panels over 50,000m² and they are claiming 3,300MWh/yr) is a good idea as the energy used by them is rather high. You think of the amount of space on top of tunnels which is not in use, or on old disused lines that are still the property of the rail companies so are left to "grow wild", and you can see a potential for the use of the solar power without carpeting the countryside in these these panels.

There's plenty space like that in various countries, why not use it like the way they have done here instead of sticking up these stupid bloody wind farms which will NEVER achieve the figures claimed for them.


(Link, but in Vlaams. Sorry for that)
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 16:58
  #7996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
This is Belgium, right? I assume they never thought to put the panels inside the tunnel, where they would not get all dusty and dirty, which is just... typical.
chuks is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 17:05
  #7997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Hardy har har har, Chuks.


Mind you, I did suggest they build a "London Eye" type of thing in Brussels beside the EU complex, connected to generators instead of motors, so they could make the people who "work" there spend 2 hours a day running in it like it was a giant hamsterwheel. That way the lazy spongers would get some exercise, we would save money on our leccy due to it being generated "naturally" and them would actually do some bloody work for their money.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 03:03
  #7998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
green granite

Perhaps we should have a separate thread for an indepth look at the politics of Global warning/climate change or what ever they call it today. I just don't want to see page after page of political dogma on here, however I'm really only a minor cog in the thread.
Is it possible to create a politics of global-warming hamsterwheel thread?


chuks

Science is boring!
No it's not. Regardless, this is not about science: This is about politicians manipulating scientific research for the purposes of a completely antidemocratic agenda.


Pugilistic Animus

no one denies the GH effect
That's correct. It might come hard for Chuks to believe, but all of us actually are scientifically literate, are interested in learning, and care about the facts.

You would think the world's leading climate scientists would be concerned about the facts as well. Sadly, they don't.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 05:41
  #7999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Chuks should read the below post

Science Is Not Being Corrupted

It is a simple summation of the state ot AGW based climate science. As the post says

For example, when AGW is claimed as a hypothesis, the appropriate question is:

Show me the: a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.


Go ahead climate scientists and AGW supporters, ball is in your court.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 06:04
  #8000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
And...

Back to you: Show me the same level of proof for what some of you are claiming is some cabal of unethical, greedy, corrupt, undemocratic, etcetera scientists, basically, in your eyes everyone who posits that climate change is in large part due to man-made factors.

It is a reasonable hypothesis that our own activities are resulting in rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving very rapid climate change. Where we go with that hypothesis, that is a very different matter, but many of you posting here seem to want to deny the basic science and with that the scientists and their scientific methods. This seems to me to be about like putting your hands over your ears to chant, 'La-la-la... I can't hear you!'

An hypothesis is just that; it is not claimed to be iron-clad proof. For instance: Is AIDS caused by the HIV virus? Well, that is just an hypothesis, one that many accept. On the other hand, one can point to long-term HIV-positive people who are free of the symptoms of AIDS. Is that some sort of anomaly or does that fact refute the hypothesis?

Scientists try to make data fit an hypothesis, when bias inevitably comes into this. Does this show dishonesty? To some of you here, well, of course! I guess you never played around with observations of the natural world as children, then, so that babies are still delivered by the stork, right?
chuks 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.