Aussies Living Simply

Global Warming – "hotter than 80% of the past 11,300 years".

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change Global Warming – "hotter than 80% of the past 11,300 years".

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 142 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #531552
    heatherc
    Member

    Three months ago the authors of the research wrote to Forbes refuting the journalist’s conclusions, pointing out they weren’t supported by the research.

    Key sentence:

    “… the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause…”

    Full response by the authors is in the comments section here:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-1219-5279

    #531553
    Snags
    Member

    Bullseye post=356523 wrote: Xio are you an oil or mining activist or spokesperson?

    Because of the politicisation of the topic it appears you dont have to be either of those two (but it helps) even an ideologically driven right winger would be just as vocal.

    Australia’s number 1 voice of the sceptics is Andrew Bolt

    His motivation is right wing dogma and pleasing his bosses in return for lots of money.

    He works for Murdoch and Gina Rhienhart the 2 richest people in Australia

    Both want to manipulate thought and have chosen media ownership and editorial comment as their vehicle.

    Both have lots of money to throw at their propaganda game.

    Both have a lot to lose if the world view changes too quickly.

    Then you can add all the rest and the link is always right wing political agendas.

    People fear change ,the concept of being a conservative is to keep things from changing,because your winning under the current rules.

    #531554
    Anonymous
    Guest

    it’s like “east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet”.

    I just can’t believe they’ve sold out on trees that will give the developers clear title.

    take care

    len

    #531555
    Airgead
    Member

    Much as I am surprised to find myself agreeing with you Len, the twain are unlikely to ever meet. At least not any time soon.

    Not sure what the comment about selling out on trees was about though…

    Cheers

    Dave

    #531556
    Anonymous
    Guest

    just that bullseye posted that the science says no amount of trees will help, before this the general consensus was that destruction of habitat was causing major weather comfort issues if not climate issues.

    anyhow

    len

    #531557
    Snags
    Member

    Interesting article in the Guardian Today about just that.

    Abbott’s tree-planting plan not enough to combat climate change, study says

    The federal Coalition’s policy of planting millions of new trees will do little to offset Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, a study by leading climate change scientists has found.

    The report warns that an absence of significant cuts to fossil fuel emissions would undermine any attempt to store carbon in trees and soils.

    The report, entitled Untangling the Confusion Around Land Carbon Science and Climate Change Mitigation Policy, says that there is public confusion over the offsetting of carbon emissions by carbon “sinks” such as forests.

    It states: “There are strict, environmentally determined limits on the maximum amount of carbon that can be restored to land carbon stocks, and good reasons why this maximum will not be achieved.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/abbotts-tree-planting-plan-climate

    #531558
    Airgead
    Member

    Abhh right.. yes…

    They haven’t given up on trees. Planting trees and other methods of carbon sequestration will help. But only to a certain extent. You would have to cover the planet with trees several times over to absorb all the extra carbon we are emitting. remember, what we are emitting are the carbon stocks from literally millions of years of forest growth. It would take similar millions of years to absorb it all back.

    So, yes, trees will help. But the only real solution is to stop emitting. If we keep emitting no amount of trees will help us.

    Planting trees has other fantastic effects as well (cooling the air, creating rain, looking great, food, timber, etc) so we absolutely should plant as many trees as we can. But we shouldn’t rely on them as a solution to our carbon problem.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #531559
    trandto
    Member

    Airgead post=356539 wrote: But the only real solution is to stop emitting. If we keep emitting no amount of trees will help us.

    Which is why there will never be a political solution, it’s too hard. Not that it really matters, we’re decade(s) too late, if 350ppm was where we needed to be, we’re way past that and even a concerted effort now would need vast amounts of industry and pollution to get to a lower emissions scenario.

    It’s a lifestyle thing, nearly all of us in the West value it too much to give it up and those in the developing world yearn to pollute and consume as much as we do. We have cut back our emissions considerably but if what I read elsewhere is right, it’s still not enough, even if everyone did the same. You can’t really go completely off the grid and sustainable in Aus, the Government won’t allow you nor will your fellow citizens.

    I have Internet (client side powered completely from renewables) but what about the servers the this site is hosted on ? The ABC and Al Jazera News sites I have open in other windows ? the Billions being spent on an NBN and the emissions output (guy had to drive out here 250km round trip from Coffs to replace my Sat dish to swap me over to interim Sat. NBN and my old equipment just goes in the bin) The emissions just from all of that industry ? Phenomenal… Let alone stuff like this

    #531560
    Snags
    Member

    Completely off the grid still requires batterys and panels

    Dont think there is enough rare earth minerals around for everyone to do it.

    Its probably more efficient and cost effective to have a localised grid and generation with renewables.

    One giant turbine is more cost effective than 10,000 small ones.

    Communities owning them is even better.

    States/Political Parties make too much from mining royalties and donations from rich miners to allow it.

    Thus we will do nothing about global warming until its too late and too hard to ignore any longer and the suffering and hardship is so bad that it becomes politically popular to do something.

    #531561
    Anonymous
    Guest

    almost like a dog chasing its tail this renewables CO2 issues, out of a possible 5+m homes or places where humans live they claim 1m rooves have solar panels(max grid connected because they don’t seem to support stand alone or wind) so there are 1m rooves with panels they claim it has cut coal power by somewhere between 8% and 13%, not a lot hey for the outlay of those panels, and when the home owners early in the morning and evening to night use power they are using generated power, that is peak power use time.

    the claim panel prices are dropping in price by cents maybe but how do you get panels onto 5m rooves when some are rentals, and some owned by pensioners, and some by the super wealthy who could give a damn, money no object they just pay.

    now the manufacture of renewables components caused CO2 as mining and smelting is involved, road, train and ship transport, ore goes to asia for smelting and forming then back here by ship, where road, rail transport again comes into play.

    anyhow maybe the debate should come from another direct.

    I suggested helping those who can only afford to pay bills and buy food to get more efficient fridges, freezers, wash machines, my thinking that alone would have as much poser wastes as do 1m of panelled rooves.

    anyway the current debate format gets nowhere. no moving forward.

    len

    #531562
    Snags
    Member

    A simple price on Carbon would get people to use less CO2 and increase demand for energy efficient appliances and power generation.

    #531563
    Bullseye
    Member

    Snags post=356551 wrote: A simple price on Carbon would get people to use less CO2 and increase demand for energy efficient appliances and power generation.

    As Tony says… 😛

    Tony Abbott: “If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

    All the politics aside… The sooner everyone recognises CO2, in excess in the atmosphere, is a pollutant the better. :whistle:

    #531564
    Lady Bee
    Keymaster

    gardenlen post=356550 wrote:

    anyhow maybe the debate should come from another direct.

    I suggested helping those who can only afford to pay bills and buy food to get more efficient fridges, freezers, wash machines, my thinking that alone would have as much poser wastes as do 1m of panelled rooves.

    Len, if you feel strongly about this (and from the number of times you’ve mentioned it I think you do), why not seek out your local politicians (state and federal) and have a talk to them about it. If you can get some of your neighbours/friends who are in a similar position to join you, all the better. But you’d need to prepare your arguments clearly and concisely with some facts and figures to show what this scheme would achieve. If you can convince your politician that it’s a sure-fire vote winner, they may just go in to bat for your idea.

    Failing that, have a talk to Centrelink – see what you can get in a loan and under what terms. I know you’ll say ‘no money to pay off a loan’, but if you do your sums right, you might find that you can save enough in power to actually pay off the loan. It won’t do you any harm to at least find out all your options.

    #531565
    Bullseye
    Member

    Tas viticulture adapting to a warming world

    http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/horticulture/general-news/tas-viticulture-adapting-to-a-warming-world/2659450.aspx?storypage=0

    This is an interesting read, as are the links to further reading.

    In the article it states, “On the Australian mainland, researchers are already reporting climate change impacts, including earlier bud burst, ripening and harvesting.”

    #531566
    Airgead
    Member

    Len

    There are also community power schemes springing up where local communities chip in to buy a communal power system.

    http://www.cpagency.org.au/index.php

    Get out there and start organising…

    And yes there are carbon costs associated with producing tings like turbines or solar panels. Typically the payback time on those costs is around 2-3 years with a rated life for a solar panel of 25+ years and similar for a turbine. So they reduce far more emissions than they create over the full lifetime of the item.

    But again… drifting off the topic of the thread. I sense that a discussion on some of the social aspects of this issue (like how to help the poor) would be better moved to a new thread…

    Cheers

    Dave

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 142 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.