Aussies Living Simply

who to believe – global warming

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change who to believe – global warming

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #531622
    BobbeeBobbee
    Member

    :laugh: :laugh: I like that!!!!! :tup:

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    #531623
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    I have that on a shirt…

    It has the COBE energy density vs frequency graph on the back too… sweet.

    #531624
    BobbeeBobbee
    Member

    :clap: :clap:

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    #531625
    trandtotrandto
    Member

    Lady B post=355163 wrote: We have overstepped the limit for CO2, but the world is still functioning, everyone is going about their normal, everyday life and for all intents and purposes nothing much has changed.

    Woah.. there-in lies the problem I guess :hug:

    It’s like saying starvation isn’t a problem as you eat a meal and yet millions die every year from it, or polluted water isn’t a problem as you buy a bottle yet 350,000+ kids die every day from it. Ask the Prime Minister of Kirabati what he thinks of climate change ?

    Everything has changed, at 400ppm and ever increasing CO2 production (39 Billion Tonnes last year up from 38 Billion tonnes the year before) we (as in humans) are in serious, serious trouble. I think people say 3 degrees, no biggie. The difference between the last ice age and today is about 5 degrees and dozens of meters of difference in sea level. All the stuff we have done (mostly jabber) is the easy stuff that hasnn’t achieved anything

    We need to cease C02 production now… ie halt the economy. Doing so will cause harm, not doing so is devastating

    and I can’t ask people say whom to “believe” ? Surely that’s obvious, the Scientists. Not one Scientist, or two but thousands of experts on this very issue, not Geologists (eg Plimer etal) or Economists but the guys who study this stuff.

    and here

    For example, according to Hansen, the world will need to completely stop burning coal by 2030 if returning to 350 ppm is to remain possible. What’s the holdup? Texas Tech climatologist Katherine Hayhoe blames “the inertia of our economic system, and the inertia of our political system.” But she, like most of her peers, believe it canโ€”and mustโ€”be done: “We have to change how we get our energy and how we use our energy.”

    There is no easy solution, if there was it would have been done. eg like Y2K or CFC’s. Every time most people turn a light on or drive to work or catch the train to work etc they are effectively saying screw the lot of you.

    I originally thought Ted Trainer was a nut job (denial is the first phase of being scared I guess) but he is right… I am at acceptance now I believe with brief forays back into depression ๐Ÿ™‚ I have done 80% of what I can, completely modified my lifestyle etc that last 20% is harder to do.

    I had to grimace when the new Premier of Vic mentioned with pride the biggest construction project in the States history was a … new road for Cars to drive on. Not a series of solar stations to allow the closure of coal fired plants for example but a new road… $8 Billion dollars (before cost overruns) for a new road !

    #531626
    slowlynowslowlynow
    Member

    I’m not 100% either way, however what can we conclude from the below?

    If the carbon groupies are right and climate change is happening and we take action we’re saved, with some raising of costs to get there!

    If the carbon groupies are wrong about climate change and we continue to worry about CO2, we may waste some money.

    If the Nay Sayers are right and we’ve taken action to reduce CO2, we again have some financial costs/ wasted money.

    If the Nay Sayers are wrong about climate change and we do nothing… we’re screwed.

    It’s interesting to see where we lie on the above spectrum, do you mind spending a bit now as ‘insurance’ or do you say ‘bugger them, let ’em fend for themselves’ (future generations)?

    The question for me isn’t whether I believe, it’s whether I think of potential consequences for my actions ๐Ÿ™‚

    #531627
    redhen2redhen2
    Member

    I’m surprised that htis is being discussed here. I believe that we have done enormous damage to the environment in many different ways – including releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere.

    Is everything going well and it’s our children that iwll need to deal with it? I’m not so sure. Look around at the freak weather catastrophes. Not so unusual any more. When was the last time you heard that a crop had been destroyed by unseasonal hail/drought/storm etc? Probably not very long ago. THat’s our food they’re talking about.

    No doubt abou it, we’re in deep shit.

    But, I have an idea: how about we err on the side of caution and stop this debate in its tracks? How about we do what we can to live more sustainably and how about we tell those of the right wing who WILL NOT entertain the idea that anything can get in the way of their profits that they are mistaken? How about not voting that great prat Abbott in?

    Surely we have passed the point of discussing the causes of climate change. This is like standing in the middle of a busy highway debating how we came to be there. Get off the road! Take action and stop staring at your navel.

    #531628
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Humans are generally too self centred on what global warming means to them.

    There’s a world full of plants & animals vulnerable to changes in climate.

    They’re part of the biosphere that supports all life.

    The situation is not great…


    Climate Change Will Cause Widespread Global-Scale Loss of Common Plants and Animals, Researchers Predict

    May 12, 2013 โ€” More than half of common plants and one third of the animals could see a dramatic decline this century due to climate change, according to research from the University of East Anglia.

    Research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 50,000 globally widespread and common species and found that more than one half of the plants and one third of the animals will lose more than half of their climatic range by 2080 if nothing is done to reduce the amount of global warming and slow it down.

    This means that geographic ranges of common plants and animals will shrink globally and biodiversity will decline almost everywhere.

    Plants, reptiles and particularly amphibians are expected to be at highest risk. Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, Amazonia and Australia would lose the most species of plants and animals. And a major loss of plant species is projected for North Africa, Central Asia and South-eastern Europe.

    But acting quickly to mitigate climate change could reduce losses by 60 per cent and buy an additional 40 years for species to adapt. This is because this mitigation would slow and then stop global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial times (1765). Without this mitigation, global temperatures could rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100.

    The study was led by Dr Rachel Warren from UEA’s school of Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Collaborators include Dr.Jeremy VanDerWal at James Cook University in Australia and Dr Jeff Price, also at UEA’s school of Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Centre. The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

    Dr Warren said: “While there has been much research on the effect of climate change on rare and endangered species, little has been known about how an increase in global temperature will affect more common species.

    “This broader issue of potential range loss in widespread species is a serious concern as even small declines in these species can significantly disrupt ecosystems.

    “Our research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides.

    “We looked at the effect of rising global temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather events, pests, and diseases mean that our estimates are probably conservative. Animals in particular may decline more as our predictions will be compounded by a loss of food from plants.

    “There will also be a knock-on effect for humans because these species are important for things like water and air purification, flood control, nutrient cycling, and eco-tourism.

    “The good news is that our research provides crucial new evidence of how swift action to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases can prevent the biodiversity loss by reducing the amount of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius rather than 4 degrees. This would also buy time — up to four decades — for plants and animals to adapt to the remaining 2 degrees of climate change.”

    The research team quantified the benefits of acting now to mitigate climate change and found that up to 60 per cent of the projected climatic range loss for biodiversity can be avoided.

    Dr Warren said: “Prompt and stringent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally would reduce these biodiversity losses by 60 per cent if global emissions peak in 2016, or by 40 per cent if emissions peak in 2030, showing that early action is very beneficial. This will both reduce the amount of climate change and also slow climate change down, making it easier for species and humans to adapt.”

    Information on the current distributions of the species used in this research came from the datasets shared online by hundreds of volunteers, scientists and natural history collections through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

    Co-author Dr Jeff Price, also from UEA’s school of Environmental Studies, said: “Without free and open access to massive amounts of data such as those made available online through GBIF, no individual researcher is able to contact every country, every museum, every scientist holding the data and pull it all together. So this research would not be possible without GBIF and its global community of researchers and volunteers who make their data freely available.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130512140946.htm

    #531629
    Anonymous
    Guest

    g’day toad,

    i ahve to be carefull in my answer, but you may very well be correct, at least what you sya makes sense and is common sense. the land care people have a commercial on TV giving teh best cure out replant the habitat. that is what has not changed, but they say CO2 is higher than 100 or 200 years ago (just dunno where they got that solid fact information?)

    but yes the climate and world are quiet fine someone said that the CO2 level had fallen(guess here in aus’) but i can’t see any difference outside, anyhow financialy we are on skid row, the gov says all bets are off because the world gov’ pulled teh rug, they said until the price rises to around $25 a kilo’ or tonne whatever then they will give the poor assistance.

    in teh mean time we will have almost no jobs, no food, no power and desperately poor aussies for the first time in over 200 years, then look to bangladesh with their secular constitution hey power is might we are secular and saw a topic last night might be our future? you see a well off sorta pensioner type advertising insurance saying how tough it is he should come down here with those who are doing tough.

    we need to pull back from this as humanitarians ad people who care about people first.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf

    take care friends

    len

    #531630
    threedogsthreedogs
    Member

    Was having a lively discussion with my 86 yr old Nanna the other day who lives on the pension in a retirement home. She was going hammer and tongs against Julia Gillard and co and how bad everything is.

    Then she conceded, ‘well they have started giving me an extra $36 dollars in my pension now; what’s it for?’ I told her it was to off-set any extra costs of the carbon tax to her living expenses. ‘Well, she huffed, I don’t even need an extra thirty six dollars, see…she (Julia Gillard) wastes money!!’

    How can one argue with that logic!

    #531631
    Anonymous
    Guest

    most don’t live in retirement homes they can little afford to.

    len

    #531632
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    I suspect the point of 3 dogs post was that the whole debate on this (and politics in general) has become a completely logic free zone. The “conservative” side of politics has been particularly bad in this regard but the other side frankly isn’t much better.

    It seems that 400 odd years of enlightenment thinking has gone out the window.

    #531633
    Anonymous
    Guest

    yep suppose and all 3dogs could get his/her gramma to sent that money our way or find someone who is really suffering??

    len

    #531634
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    Airgead post=355852 wrote: I suspect the point of 3 dogs post was that the whole debate on this (and politics in general) has become a completely logic free zone. The “conservative” side of politics has been particularly bad in this regard but the other side frankly isn’t much better.

    It seems that 400 odd years of enlightenment thinking has gone out the window.

    Yep logic has gone out the window. Where is the Governments logic in introducing a carbon tax (great idea) but firstly compensating suppliers & users so fossil fuel power companies still make record profits, secondly actively encouraging the biggest expansion in “carbon” (coal, gas, minerals etc) mining and transport in Australia’s (& the worlds?) history, thirdly not actively encouraging the installation of Oz made solar panels on every roof, fourth actively encouraging an increase in population, and fifth but not least nor final governing whilst allowing our net food imports to rise above 50%.

    Atmospheric carbon will continue to increase infinitum until nature cracks the shits because no government can afford to reduce it – there is your logic. Sad but true.

    #531635
    Anonymous
    Guest

    carbon will continue to increase infinitum whilst ever trees are seen as weeds to agricultual and other developments.

    replanting habitat instead of windmills will work and maybe the cheapest way. also they did try to encourage panels on all rooves but it failed because makers, suppliers and installers took big bites out of the rebate, so the rebate failed, rebates usually do as it becomes the main reason for going to solar, not the real want to really help. the more panels installed the higher the price. called profiteering.

    the only systems that may help some are stand alone systems with wind as well.

    len

    #531636
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    gardenlen post=355858 wrote: carbon will continue to increase infinitum whilst ever trees are seen as weeds to agricultual and other developments.

    replanting habitat instead of windmills will work and maybe the cheapest way. also they did try to encourage panels on all rooves but it failed because makers, suppliers and installers took big bites out of the rebate, so the rebate failed, rebates usually do as it becomes the main reason for going to solar, not the real want to really help. the more panels installed the higher the price. called profiteering.

    the only systems that may help some are stand alone systems with wind as well.

    len

    Planting windmills stop coal fired power and the destruction of habitat and environment that causes (they can be planted in the ocean too)

    Re panels

    Lets not forget the profiteering and rebates that goes on in the fossil fuel industry either.

    You just send in tax payer funded Armies to get your hands on it and governments build your railways ports and power plants for you to burn it in.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.