Global Warming or Cooling

General tips, questions and answers about going green in your home and business. Achieve a more environmentally friendly lifestyle!

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:41 pm

Icarus wrote:The goal really is not to force consumers to reduce useage but to get suppliers to generate more effciently , to push them towards a less carbon intensive generation and usage .


1/ I don't see the point in this. If we continue to increase our usage we will always be running behind. We will be constantly increasing our generation capacity (using resources to make resources) constantly upgrading or installing new powerlines etc. Having escaped "peak oil" do we go thundering on and hit "peak copper"?. As someone with an interest in agriculture, I'm already hearing about "peak phosphorous"..... we need to use less, not just move from plundering one resource to another.When in a few years we discover that acres of black panels are absorbing heat that would otherwise have been reflected back in to space, and hence we are in fact heating the planet with solar panels, what do we do? (This is unlikely, but I'm trying to make the point that we can't just keep using more of everything).

2/ You can't push the producers to do anything by hitting them with a tax they can pass on to the consumer (and they will, remember). If we force the power company to pay 60c/kWh for my solar power, how long will it be before that gets passed to the customers, and having passed the cost on they make the same profit and it's business as usual. Or perhaps we require that they contribute to a managed forestry project that massively increases the cost of farmland because its a "tax efficient investment", thus reducing food production and all for nothing because a bushfire returns the CO2 to the atmosphere. And through all this the consumers are paying more for their power!

Icarus wrote:I think that if you think GW is manmade the its important to do it , if you dont think it is then whats the point .
If it it is manmade then really we dont have alot of time to reduce , this is the urgency becuase we really have no base load generators that can replace coal and gas fast enough , apart from atomic energy , otherwise we could do over 100- 200 yrs with no pain .


I'm not convinced it's man made, but I still think we should be more efficient with our resource utilisation. We will hit "peak oil" regadless of climate change, so there's a good reason to prepare regardless of the weather. Everyone has "buttons" to motivate them. Mine is efficiency - I really don't mind using my time or money (or electricity) as long as I get the best result at the end of it. "Standby power" use is inefficient, hence I resent it. Equally those "cigs and booze before medicines" people I mentioned earlier would probably rush to switch off their appliances if they thought they might be able to buy an extra carton of smokes every month or two....... but they'll never know that if its not pointed out to them!

Icarus wrote:zzsstt , man you can write heaps of words , lol


I was born before the SMS generation!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Icarus » Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:00 pm

Tracker , as far as Kids committing suicide I grow up with the cold war are the ever present threat of nuclear war , did worry me just got on with life , and really how would the Libs be much better , i seem to remember they gave us the other great big TAX , GST , what did that mean with my already 40 cents in the dollar taxed wages I had to pay another 10% bringing it to 50% oh happy days .

but I digress into politics , i generally think legislating to control individuals behavior is the wrong way to go educating people to make they own mind up is better and if the majority make the wrong decisision well we just have to live with that , its part of democracy . bye educating I mean giving people the ability to think for themselves and research beyond taboild media reporting . sorry I kept digressing there .

zzsstt , yes I agree standby modes are a problem , Ibought one of those efergy metres and was surprised at how much power was used just tuening the TV on and some lights , it quickly got up to 1000 watts , maybe if they where fitted free to every how people would relise just how much wastage there is .

Just out of interest what would prove it for you guys that GW was cuased by Man ? or women too ?
and cheer up you will get to vote soon :)
Dave
Icarus
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Woy Woy NSW

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby GeoffHammond » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:53 am

I don't think it is fair to blame one side of politics for the Australian GST - the other side were advocating it as well for a while. I think it was an economic theoretical climate that brought it about more than a particular (bland, sugary) political persuasion.

Penalties are an easy way to *cough* 'deter' particular behaviours but they don't work much. If they did, people would drive their cars below posted speed limits and not with too much alcohol inside them, rather than complain about hidden taxes when they get caught. Has the halving of the road-toll over the past ten years occurred because of speed/alcohol laws or because of safer cars (or because of road congestion and subsequently lower urban speeds) or something else? In several countries, the death penalty is still metered out for many offences: if it were a truly effective deterrent, would it become obsolete?

People do have to want to change in order to change. That is why the argument about whether global warming is man-made is so important: it gives everyone something to focus on rather than doing something while the disbelievers come up with some overwhelming evidence to support their case.

We live in a world where self-responsibility as a general rule is reduced. There are so many things that 'They' should do. Things seem rarely to be 'my' fault these days. That has to be turned around so that individuals start taking responsibility for their own actions. At the same time, the very nature of the global stock market and all it entails means the corporate world will not do anything about the (any!) issue until they see a positive economic return. I am not advocating that the basis of the world's economic system be disbanded. Or maybe I am; I have in other contexts...

(The story of the Sybilline Books is totally apt, I think.)
GeoffHammond
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:19 am
Location: Hepburn, Vic

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:37 am

Icarus wrote:Just out of interest what would prove it for you guys that GW was cuased by Man ? or women too ?


A good question. I'm not sure it's possible to prove that it IS caused by man, the scales are perhaps just too big.

I suppose that one would need first to demonstrate cause and effect. We know that burning fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere. We also know that the "greenhouse effect" is real but we also know that CO2 is a relatively minor player in the greenhouse list, with water being by far the biggest contributor.

So the first task would perhaps be to show that a relatively minor rise in a relatively minor contributor could have an impact. This is tricky to achieve, especially these days when we rely on computer simulations for everything and we know that computers are only as good as their programmers. For a computer to give an accurate result, it must be given all the relevant data and all the relevant rules/assumptions. To achieve this we would therefore have to first prove that we had all the relevant data, and that the assumptions were correct..... this loop, by the way, repeats for every piece of data or assumption that came from another computer simulation! If an assumption is incorrect, then so is the result of the simulation. A good start here would be to show that the simulations are accurate, and that we have an understanding of the climate. Proving this requires us to accurately predict something. Comparing the output of the simulation with historical data is not a valid proof, after all it was that historical data that was used to produce the simulations. A diary can show with great accuracy what happened in the past........

Another good place to start would be to prove that what we are seeing now has never been seen before - that would indicate strongly that the factor not previously present (i.e. man's use of fossil fuels) is a causative factor. Again, this is tricky because we are extrapolating history from indirect measurements. [In any case, all the data we have actually indicates that it has all happened before, and in fact we saw a bigger rise in the 1940's than we are currently seeing.]

It would also help if we did not limit our studies to the last 100 years. It used to be the case in science that the data studied was based on a significant sample size. The earth is millions of years old, and yet we are basing our conclusions on what has happened in the last few years. If you were employed to study supermarket shopping habits, and you reported that the store had no customers based on your findings from watching the doors between 2.00am and 2.05am on a Sunday morning, you would be laughed at. Yet here we draw a graph of 100 years out of the life of a planet, and make a declaration. So, plot temperatures fot the last million years and demonstrate that the current situation is unprecendented. Once again, the data is not easily available to do this!

I am also concerned about some of the interpretations, and how we get to them. Looking at a graph, it is always possible to calculate a best fit line. But the same rules can be used to produce a best fit line from the random pattern of shotgun pellets on a piece of card. Worse still, if we select the small area of that piece of card that suits our purposes, we can make the line do whatever we want. Keeping this in mind, look a some of the graphs presented that "prove" climate change.

As a scientist, what I would really like to see is SCIENCE. Facts not assumptions. Data rather than edited highlights. Timescales that are significant and representative.

I could go on, but the basic point is that the subject is simply too large, with too many unknowns and too many assumptions. I am not sure that it is possible to prove climate change is man made, but I think that there are a number of steps that could be taken to strengthen the arguments and remove doubt. Unfortunately I suspect that any attempt to do this would probably result in the case for man made climate change falling apart entirely, hence it's best to stick to producing predictions of doom from the entrails of chickens... oh, sorry, from "computer simulations".
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Icarus » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:35 am

here,s some science http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do- ... rming.html , there dont use computers just satellite observations and known facts about CO2 , yes water vapor absorbs heat and clouds reflect light , but we are not really pumping billoins of tons of extra water vapor into the atmosphere to account for the long term warming trend . plus water vapor is faster at self regulation and removing itself from the atmosphere , where as CO2 takes centurys to precipitate into the carbon sinks .

cheers Dave

oh and here some stuff on water vapor www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

sorry iam linking but i dont have time to read it and summerise for you .

Dave
Icarus
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Woy Woy NSW

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby greg c » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:52 pm

I must return to this debate the lazy way to by linking outside articles.

First there is this that puts the illegally acquired emails in prespective. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 770249.htm

and this is a very well written article that is referenced in the article above

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... t=0&page=1

Also this on the Lateline, James Hansen,the preeminent climate scientist, who very rarely gives interviews, puts those who believe water vapour is the culprit in their place

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 764523.htm

enjoy

Greg
User avatar
greg c
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Icarus » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:00 am

"I must return to this debate the lazy way to by linking outside articles."

hey Greg its not being lazy , why even if you summerise it you still need to reference your sources , by linking .

I find just finding the facts to refute these claims takes so much time , to then have to summerise it for them , WELL ! easier just to link it and if they read it which if they are true skeptics they at least should , then if they disagree they can say why .

Funny this topics gone a bit quite the last few days .

cheers Dave
Icarus
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Woy Woy NSW

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby terryw » Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:18 am

I really can't believe that anyone (outside of those with a political agenda) can possibly deny that the climate is changing and that humans are the primary reason for this change. Just look around...take note of the all the things happening around the world. Examine our consumption patterns, our pollution and waste production, our diminishing arable land, loss of biodiversity, loss of reliable water sources and the sheer numbers of humans trying to live here. You have to see that it cannot last. There must be an impact on the planet's ability to keep in balance.

Don't be a denier. We haven't got that much time. Get on board, cut your consumption, minimise your footprint and prepare for some pretty nasty changes to our climate. Learn to grow your own food and minimise your dependence on society to feed you, employ you and keep you entertained.
terryw
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:47 am

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby BarKing » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:26 am

Lazy - Moi?

http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/faqs.html (also look at the linked pdf which gives a comprehensive debunking)

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
BarKing
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:20 am

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby moemoke » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:01 pm

I have another thought on Global Warming.
If you stand in a grassy paddock or in the forest on a hot day and then on the same day
you stand in a concrete / asphalt carpark, which is hotter?

The carpark seems a lot hotter, where does this heat go? Up I guess!

As the world is laying more roads in the name of 'progress', ripping up more forests etc,
is the extra radiant heat warming things up?
moemoke
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:34 am
Location: Moe, Victoria

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

new solar power specials