Aussies Living Simply

Too Late to Stop Global Warming by Cutting Emissions?

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change Too Late to Stop Global Warming by Cutting Emissions?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #257365
    trandtotrandto
    Member

    Too Late to Stop Global Warming by Cutting Emissions? Scientists Argue for Adaption Policies

    At present, governments’ attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are prob¬ably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming,”

    Pretty much have to agree with that.

    #528267
    Anonymous
    Guest

    just saw on ABC TV this arvo’ there has been no increase in the earths temp (global warming) for 16 year, mmm interesting hey.

    they did show a graph.

    len

    #528268
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    Sounds like someone is deliberately trying to mislead the public so they can keep polluting for free or because of some quasi religious or political agenda against the science.

    Did they explain this on the ABC Len?

    …chose a starting point that came in the middle of “an exceptionally strong El Nino,” which came after a “double-dip La Nina.”

    The unusual conditions in the Pacific Ocean led to a spike in temperatures.

    “Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading” — start the comparison in August instead of January 1997, and you get a sharper temperature rise.

    The important thing to note, the Met Office says, is the long-term trend, and “the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both.

    Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade,” and over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have climbed by about 0.8ºC.

    here it is in full Len

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/category/met-office-in-the-media/

    #528269
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    trandto post=349770 wrote: Too Late to Stop Global Warming by Cutting Emissions? Scientists Argue for Adaption Policies

    At present, governments’ attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are prob¬ably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming,”

    Pretty much have to agree with that.

    GFC and global recession is a pretty efficient market driven way of reducing emissions.

    Agree it might be too late but I still think we should still try and use less and become more sustainable, while preparing for the inevitable.

    A rise in Oil prices that will naturally drive emissions and living standards down and reduce population by making industrial farming uneconomical to feed the billions of people who rely on imported grains.

    and climate change making arable farmland with predictable rainfall harder to find.

    #528270
    Anonymous
    Guest

    yep snags,

    sounds like somebody is misleading the public alright hey. you have teh belief that your side is right and the other side is wrong

    anyhow to me and very many others 1 graph is as good as another, each promotes one side or another with no real evidence.

    before the kill switch gets pushed

    len

    #528271

    A lot of SCIENCE gets spoken, and a fair bit of FEAR seems to ride along. Some stalagmite cores from caves on the Nullabor were shown on TV recently … they show a lot more than ice cores and are a lot easier to get at. Anyway they showed a “41,000 year cycle” between ice ages.

    Given “The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%” Wiki – there’s been a bit of climate goings on wouldn’t you say?

    I recall a recent BBC or similar program that listed the 7 events that have decimated life on earth in those 4.54 BILLION years. So one thing we know for sure is that change is a certainty – and climate change has happened before. King Canute had no luck holding back the tide and I’m guessing we’ll have no better luck holding back the changes in climate.

    Although there is some dispute about the human cause blah blah, there is now doubting that we are currently enjoying happy WARM times between ice ages – and we have been for pathetically short history of man on earth. What we really need to get bothered by is not global warming, but global cooling. If man is around for the next ice age, there’s gonna be hell to pay!

    Warming ain’t so bad. How many species have become extinct because of that compared to ice ages? And I hear people saying oh how bad it is that glaciers are receding and some areas of Greenland are not covered in snow now. I’m sure they really HATE being able to grow something, it must be so bad for Greenlanders not to be freezing their whatsis off!

    However ….. for all those readying poison arrows and aiming them in my direction let me say this. What we consider is status quo in terms of carbon output now is just a blip. We have only had the use of fossil fuels for 200 odd years out of 40,000 years of human history. Technology has and will continue to evolve so rapidly as to render most of what we now do with fossil fuels completely redundant. In 20 years we have almost tripled the output of solar cells, In a few years your roof will be one big solar cell, and that will be the defacto standard.

    Some say that when taking into account capital costs and distribution losses the price of producing a watt of energy, solar PV is already lower than conventional power and it is totally probable that all fossil fuel power plants will be noncompetitive against other systems that don’t even exist now within 20 years.

    I’d go further and suggest that deserts will be greened with de-salinated seawater and thus broad scale carbon sequestration will begin again in earnest as we have plentiful cheap clean power.

    We have seen so many SCIENCE scares that I’m pretty convinced this is just one more. I am a member here because I want to live simply, not because I see it as being necessary to save the planet – I just want to! We have wonderful ASL lives full of purpose and enrichment. I blow raspberries at fear mongers of all persuasions.

    Speaking directly to the thread topic – I believe its a non question as emissions will be cut as a natural result of technology shift.

    #528272
    milkywaygirlmilkywaygirl
    Member

    gardenlen post=349771 wrote: just saw on ABC TV this arvo’ there has been no increase in the earths temp (global warming) for 16 year, mmm interesting hey.

    how is it interesting it’s a mis-reperesentation

    if you’re genuinely interested

    http://www.skepticalscience.net/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.

    http://skepticalscience.net/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

    There seems to be some sort of mass Dunning Kruger effect in play, where some twat who has no idea claims something vs the guys that spent decades studying this say.

    #528273
    mrgnomemrgnome
    Member

    A previous response of mine to this greenhouse warming topic 👿

    Firstly, one needs to determine which group of climate scientists they wish to support. There are the climate scientists who present data that would suggest the climate is undergoing change, just as an opposing group of climate scientist can present data to refute climate change. Then, if one is to believe that climate change is occurring, there are opposing sides as to who or what is the significant contributing influence – anthropogenic activities or natural rhythms and cycles. Of course the doomsdayers will present data that would indicate that anthropogenic activities are the single biggest contributor to climate change. However, this can also be refuted with contradictory data. Statistics and data can be manipulated to support any hypotheses; some of our most accepted “theories” have relied on the manipulation and misrepresentation of data and experimental findings to have them accepted. In regards to climate change being a natural occurrence, lets not forget that the earth has been subjected to significant and dramatic climatic perturbations during its geological history. How many ice-ages have occurred historically? Likewise, how many warming periods has the earths natural rhythm produced?

    Lets not forget that the dinosaurs extinction is attributed to climate change. Does this indicate dinosaurs were responsible for the sudden shift in global weather patterns? Had previous generations of dinosaurs impacted detrimentally upon their surrounding environment via over-consumption of natural resources? Was the ice-age that is believed to have resulted in their extinction the earth’s response to a period of global-warming induced by vast numbers of herbivorous mega-methane producers?

    Don’t anyone get me wrong, I’m not saying the climate isn’t changing. I’m also not saying that human activities have not had some influence on any changes in weather patterns. What I am making light of, is that climatic changes, weather patterns etc are not static – they are ever-changing, regardless of any form of human activities. Evolution (if we are to believe that theory) is an on-going process, just as climatic conditions are ever-changing in a temporal sense. This is one of the biggest omissions in the presentation of climate-data. Thus, one could say that much of the climate-change debate is biased and weighted to support a pre-determined hypotheses. This is not science – this is public manipulation.

    Essentially, what each of us determines to be factual will be the information that best melds with our dominant belief system. Belief systems, whether relating to the environment, religion or politics are extremely dogmatic. Each of us will therefore absorb or align ourselves with information that best fits within our belief systems.

    My input is not intended to offend; the intention is to hopefully make each of us question the information that is presented to us via the media; question the providers of that information’s intent; question the degree of bias in information, for it is evident in any article. Finally, thanks for taking the time to read :blink:

    #528274
    milkywaygirlmilkywaygirl
    Member

    garryhoddinott post=349777 wrote: and climate change has happened before.

    but by doing nothing we’re consigning Billions of people to death from the exacerbated climate change from our actions. “Before” there were not Billions of people on the Planet. We are just mass murders from our actions, no different to the Nazis, the Khmer Rough etc and yet we pariah them and are chuffed with ourselves ?

    I do agree there is nothing we can do because what has to be done is way to scary for most people to imagine… 60% unemployment, banning fossil fuel sales etc are some of the things I consider a necessity to start the process, these are completely unpalatable to the electorate.

    garryhoddinott post=349777 wrote: King Canute had no luck holding back the tide and I’m guessing we’ll have no better luck holding back the changes in climate.

    and Nero fiddled while Rome burned

    garryhoddinott post=349777 wrote: Although there is some dispute about the human cause blah blah,

    Seriously ? there is no dispute from the people who know just from those that don’t. Climate has always changed and always will, just not this fast and the speed is catastrophic for humanity. We have people suffering the Dunnings Kruger effect and suggesting they have more knowledge then people with degrees and doctoral studies in physics and chemistry and decades of studying climate because there was grass in Greenland a few thousand years ago, when there was like 100 Million people on the planet that lived an agrarian lifestyle, or they something on the tellie for example. The current USA drought is the worst in 6,000 years. 600 years ago, even 200 years ago that wouldn’t have mattered, today it matters VERY much.

    garryhoddinott post=349777 wrote: Technology has and will continue to evolve so rapidly as to render most of what we now do with fossil fuels completely redundant. In 20 years we have almost tripled the output of solar cells, In a few years your roof will be one big solar cell, and that will be the defacto standard.

    oh good lord, there are people that still believe this renewable energy is the answer ? You’re saying Science does not know enough about anthropogenic climate change but Science will save the day anyway ? What sort of cognitive dissonance is that.

    It doesn’t matter, unlike Snag I believe we have passed the tipping point, the Science is done and dusted, the only thing in real debate is the size of the catastrophe, 2100, many Billion dead (how many is the point of discussion and the size of the calamities caused), go you good thing …

    garryhoddinott post=349777 wrote: We have seen so many SCIENCE scares that I’m pretty convinced this is just one more. I am a member here because I want to live simply, not because I see it as being necessary to save the planet – I just want to! We have wonderful ASL lives full of purpose and enrichment. I blow raspberries at fear mongers of all persuasions.

    Saving the Planet is a nonsense, it’ll be here for Billions of years, those two generations after us will curse our names for consigning them to a hellish existence all so we can drive around to view autumn leaves. Why do you consider truth heretical, there are no “scares” ? all will be well… because … all will be well ??

    I live a simpler existence to acquire the skills necessary to live a simpler existence.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/too-hot-to-handle-can-we-afford-a-4degree-rise-20110709-1h7hh.html

    So you’re saying we should ignore guys like this but trust you ?

    Keynote speaker Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute and climate adviser to the German Chancellor and to the EU, has said that in a 4-degree warmer world, the population “carrying capacity estimates [are] below 1 billion people”

    #528275
    trandtotrandto
    Member

    DOH … the above two posts are mine, I didn’t see that my partner was logged in, we are sharing the same computer at the moment, my apologies. The critique is mine, not hers.

    #528276
    trandtotrandto
    Member

    mrgnome post=349780 wrote: Firstly, one needs to determine which group of climate scientists they wish to support.

    Sigh.. this is simply not true

    http://skepticalscience.net/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

    There is no debate, the Science is conclusive. The debate is over the size of the catastrophe

    Everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts

    Anyway, that’s enough from me. I was simply pointing out with my original post, I didn’t want to get into a debate with the flat earth society but some of the untruths on here are mind boggling. I was trying to point out that some Scientists are starting to say we need to change to mitigation strategies as the reduction strategies are useless. eg consideration and planning for moving the populations on the coast further inland, no more coastal developments etc etc

    #528277
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    Move the Champagne district to England.

    #528278
    mrgnomemrgnome
    Member

    Climate change is inevitable.. it’s been part of the earths natural cycles and rhythms since time immemorial. Nothing lasts forever, everything changes..

    Prior to the 1970’s 99% of the geoscientific community refuted the concept of plate tectonics….. prior to that the conclusive evidence indicated that the theory of plate tectonics was unfounded…. likewise, the concept of a flat earth was proved wrong.. :whistle:

    Scientific theory is just that.. theory.. the best accepted paradigm to understand or explain a system, occurrence or event.

    #528279
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    So you agree that we are beyond the tipping point and need to plan accordingly or are you just trying to deny Man had anything to do with it ?

    even though he burned billions of years worth of rotting fossils, bred up billions of humans and tore down most of the worlds forest all in the last century.

    #528280
    Anonymous
    Guest

    boy milkyway, you certainly get defensive just like the ccco2 climate change worshippers always do, you say one science misrepresents but another doesn’t they are all men/women all open to corruption and the power and glory stuff. use some latteral objective thinking of your own, you only support someone else’s theory. we need to stop cutting down forests we have gone too far, replant the trees and your imaginary billions won’t suffer as much let alone perish.

    you are supporting a largely unpopulast theory.

    just for the worshippers who show no compassion for their fellow man, our fortnightly av’ grocery cost has risen from $130 to $200, and we would have to use no power to stop the bill from rising we are one of very many here in australia. seems you would have us starving in the streets, must have good consciousness’s.

    anyhow so why get so defensive when on paper you have won, just sit back with feet up and enjoy the coming turmoil.

    need to be wise around these threads the big bully types no doubt have their own vested interests to promote money to make from fear.

    snags, snagged it tore down forests which us wee folk were powerless to stop and still are powerless.

    happy days

    len

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.