PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics) (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/628189-war-australia-any-oz-politics.html)

parabellum 23rd Dec 2019 12:01

Why to the Global Warming clique insist on using data gathered over the last 200 years when accurate instruments and reliable reporting personnel have only been around for about 50-60 years?

In my rotary days I would often land on a rig and have to shut down for a while, after the obligatory massive meal, better than anything onshore, I would go to the geologists shed and the geologists would show a variety of core samples taken from the earths crust that not only showed the state of the well being drilled but gave a complete history of what had happened on the earths surface for several hundred years previously, including droughts, fires, floods etc. and was cyclical and we are in such a cycle now. The combined effects of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim, Iceland etc. plus the annual bush fires of Australia and California totally negate man's efforts to reduce green houses gases in the atmosphere. Maybe Little Greta should start talking to the geological fraternity instead of being a toy of the Al Gore mob who are determined to fabricate a case for increasing government revenue by taxation, not to mention their own personal wealth.

De_flieger 23rd Dec 2019 12:52


Originally Posted by parabellum (Post 10646170)
The combined effects of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim, Iceland etc. plus the annual bush fires of Australia and California totally negate man's efforts to reduce green houses gases in the atmosphere.

People keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it true.

----copy pasted from an earlier discussion on this topic, but still relevant ----
Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.

Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".

The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.
------------------------

dr dre 23rd Dec 2019 15:07


Originally Posted by parabellum (Post 10646170)
Maybe Little Greta should start talking to the geological fraternity

What, these guys?:


Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s. If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans
Geological Society of America


The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change poses risks to people and ecosystems by exacerbating existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and societal threats, and generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the temperature increases
The Geological Society

WingNut60 23rd Dec 2019 20:21


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 10646206)
People keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it true.

----copy pasted from an earlier discussion on this topic, but still relevant ----
Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.

Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".

The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.
------------------------

It isn't so much what we do, it's how many of us are doing it.

JustinHeywood 23rd Dec 2019 23:06


Originally Posted by WingNut60 (Post 10646454)
It isn't so much what we do, it's how many of us are doing it.

Correct.

I am not a climate scientist (nor is Jennifer Marohasy, Tim Flannery or Al Gore for that matter). But I know two things:

- the idea that scientists worldwide would collaborate in some conspiracy to distort the truth is ludicrous. How would that work?

-on any technical issue there will almost always be some people who interpret data differently, whether it’s a medical issue (eg vaccines) or a science issue (eg Big Bang theory).

So like most reasonable people who aren’t experts, we go with the scientific CONSENSUS, which in this case is strongly for anthropogenic global warming.

Except, it seems, with climate change. A couple hours on Google, everyone’s an expert.

layman 24th Dec 2019 10:27

dr dre, der fleiger, JustinHeywood and other climate change educators

The following gives an indication of what you're up against attempting to have people re-consider their views on climate change.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-nine-years-on

In brief, some years ago SBS hosted an Insight program on Climate Change with an audience of climate sceptics / deniers able to question a climatologist.

Nine years on some members of that audience were approached to see if their opinions had changed. None of the four quoted have changed their views.

One is reported as saying “I’m still 100 per cent certain of this [the world cooling itself] and the difference between the environmental scientists and real scientists is very wide. Because environmental scientists look for the funding from the government and the real scientists work for CSIRO …” and “I’m still not convinced any data exists that there is global warming …”

It would appear he hasn’t even looked at the CSIRO web site let alone read any of the reports published by the 'real scientists' on their climate research or potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

oicur12.again 24th Dec 2019 20:28

“Why to the Global Warming clique....”

Lets take a look at the global warming clique in the US

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Association
American Physical Society
Geological Society of America
US National Academy of Sciences
NASA
NOAA
US Department of Defense
US Global Research Program

All of these bodies have arrived at a consensus supporting the argument that climate change is real and caused primarily by humans.

Thats quite a clique wouldn’t you agree.

“......200 years when accurate instruments and reliable reporting personnel have only been around for about 50-60 years?”

Please tell me I am misreading this part of your argument. Accurate climate change data sets go back just a tad further than 200 years.

currawong 25th Dec 2019 01:41

Alarm fatigue.

Someone recently thoroughly debunked the "Ice Age was Coming in the Seventies" thing to me. Scientifically.

Trouble is, that is what the media (print and screen) was pushing in the seventies. I was there to see it. He was not.

20 feet of sea level rise by now, said Mr Gore. Yeah yeah.

This particular rain forest has never burnt before. Ever. Well, not since 1952, turns out.

So, given what has gone before, it is somewhat easy to understand the sceptical position many take.

megan 25th Dec 2019 03:10

The global warming sect have done themselves a vast disservice by their apoplectic predictions which have not come to pass, little wonder there are those who look upon their pronouncements with a fair measure of scepticism.

It isn't so much what we do, it's how many of us are doing it
Since man harnessed the use of fire we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, WingNut has the nub of the problem, overpopulation, there are now far too many of us desecrating the earth, denuding it of all flora and fauna and leaving our waste in its place, any farmer would be doing something about destocking.

esa-aardvark 25th Dec 2019 10:35

Have a look for :-

An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues

currawong 25th Dec 2019 13:07


Originally Posted by esa-aardvark (Post 10647255)
Have a look for :-

An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues

"It is not the job of the IPCC to audit each and every dataset in substantive detail"

:ugh:

Wow.

chuboy 25th Dec 2019 22:19


Originally Posted by megan (Post 10647162)
Since man harnessed the use of fire we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, WingNut has the nub of the problem, overpopulation, there are now far too many of us desecrating the earth, denuding it of all flora and fauna and leaving our waste in its place, any farmer would be doing something about destocking.

So what are you doing to limit your impact? While it is true population growth is unsustainable, it's particularly bad if all 7 billion indulge or aspire to indulge in the Australian 1st-world lifestyle:
  • driving every time or nearly every time you have to travel somewhere
  • eating meat or dairy at least once, if not twice a day (one of the greatest contributors to deforestation worldwide)
  • eating commercially caught seafood
  • purchasing goods that are manufactured in developing countries
  • consuming processed foods and cosmetics that contain palm oil and its derivatives
  • replacing something that can be repaired
Not to mention all the things that we do which are not even an indulgence, such as package all our goods in plastic or enjoy continuous electricity supply for all but a few minutes each year.

If even half the people on Earth lived like we do, I doubt my kids let alone my grandkids would live without seeing the total collapse of our ecosystems.

So is the answer to expect everyone in the first world to spontaneously choose to live a less comfortable life? Or enforce stronger environmental regulations, that disincentivise the outsourcing of environmental impacts to developing nations where they care more about having food for this week than preserving littoral rainforest?

Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels? Not a great place to start in my view, considering that if we want to minimise human suffering through such a process, it would make sense to start with the heaviest per-capita polluters first.

WingNut60 25th Dec 2019 23:16


Originally Posted by chuboy (Post 10647395)
..

Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels? ........

Not my solution. It's nature's solution.
We could make a start but nature will do it anyway, given time.

dr dre 26th Dec 2019 00:38


Originally Posted by esa-aardvark (Post 10647255)
Have a look for :-

An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature
anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other
contemporary climate issues

More pseudoscience.

"(His) naive claims of alternative causes of global warming do not consider the relevant laws of physics and do not make sense" - Climatology professor at UNSW

"unwilling to admit his obvious and indisputable errors"

"Their conclusions....are not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper" - 9 actual climate scientists.

"the claim that this falsifies IPCC findings is wrong." - ANU Climatology professor.

"This thesis makes little attempt to quantify the uncertainties ... It has been left to others to quantify the impact." - the author's own words. He wrote a whole PhD that, by his own admission, is nothing more than an overly long blog post critiquing (without scientific basis) the work of others but drawing no conclusions himself.

megan 26th Dec 2019 02:19


Or perhaps your solution to overpopulation to is to simply eliminate life until we are back to sustainable levels?
I'm not smart enough to devise a solution to the problem, same as when I have an issue with my car/aircraft/dishwasher, I call some one who knows what they're doing. It doesn't stop me recognising there is a problem though. We are the apex predator (no others predating upon us - could return to a world war I guess to thin numbers), we have pretty much eliminated epidemic disease, use medical science to enable gay and hetro couples to have children, where they would otherwise be unable, all because it is our right to breed. Don't know the answer to the last, it being such a powerful drive in all creatures. At least in the animal kingdom if there is an excessive population the predators take advantage until things get back in balance - save rabbits and feral cats.

currawong 26th Dec 2019 03:56

I think, dr dre, you may have touched on one of the major problems with this debate.

The work in question, is merely an audit of data. Some of which is obviously erroneous.

And the only conclusion drawn, is that some are erroneous. What anyone does with that information is up to them, indeed outside the scope of the study.

What is more telling is the response.

Of the 5 links you/ Media Watch has provided, 3 refer to a different piece of work. One to criticism of an opinion not of the author. And one to the work itself.

The work does not claim the erroneous data results in any breakthrough regards climate debate (other than the surprising revelation that the data had not been previously audited), only that there are some questionable data present.

Indeed, one would wonder why subzero temperatures recorded in equatorial regions of the Pacific Islands and suchlike had not attracted attention earlier.

The discovery of said errors and potential for homogenisation with the rest of the data set can only improve the science for all concerned.

And yet, here we are.

dr dre 26th Dec 2019 08:06


Originally Posted by currawong (Post 10647452)
The work does not claim the erroneous data results in any breakthrough regards climate debate (other than the surprising revelation that the data had not been previously audited), only that there are some questionable data present.

There's no doubt with the massive amount of work done in climatology and the massive amount of data produced there'll always be expansion of certain topics, certain knowledge, refinement, better accuracy etc. That's what science is.

However none of these "studies" that have been produced by skeptics that supposedly "destroy" the climate argument have altered the consensus view to a point where any reputable scientific organisation has retracted a statement of support of the consensus view of human induced climate change.

In fact if the aforementioned study helps clear up gaps but causes no change to the overwhelming view of scientists then it strengthens the consensus.

ORAC 7th Apr 2020 06:38

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-appeal-upheld

George Pell: Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction

Pell will be freed immediately after the high court’s decision that his appeal should be upheld, as there was ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’

WingNut60 7th Apr 2020 06:42

Quoting Melissa Davey:- "An interesting point to note in this case is that every court who heard the victim give evidence, convicted Pell.
The first court that didn't view that evidence acquitted him."

KelvinD 7th Apr 2020 07:14

I found it interesting that the Appeal Court ruled that the jury had not considered this or that evidence. I wonder how do they know exactly what the jury had considered in their deliberations?


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:22.


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