Climate Change - Yes or No

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

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby MichaelB » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:32 am

Hi Joey,

Anything that happens on Earth that doesn't cause it to explode could be considered within its design limits I guess. Even if it was totally barren and unable to support life as we know it, that could be considered within its design limits. However, it could be argued that the fate of the planet is destruction with or without our influence as part of the Universe's grand design - the sun fizzling out, blowing up, asteroid impact, whatever and ultimately, all our "green" efforts are for nought except to buy some time while we figure out how to get off this planet before such an event.

But these issues and whether humanity is the caretaker of Earth, is any more important than any or the sum of all its other inhabitants and whether it should be regulated to accommodate our continued existence is another question entirely and probably one worth discussing in a different thread as that would be an interesting discussion in itself - but brace yourself, as it is likely one that would start bringing issues of religion into it and then we'll have a real challenge on our hands in moderating that one.

It's whether human activity is influencing the pace of climate change and the implications of that change that is the topic of this thread and one we should probably stick to in order to stay on track with this discussion.

The other questions you ask about sea level and temperature rise are certainly valid.
Michael B.
Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

Check out Energy Matters' current solar power specials
or try our instant online solar quoting system!
User avatar
MichaelB
Energy Matters Team
Energy Matters Team
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:03 am

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:49 am

Hi Joey,

Thanks again for your ever probing questions.

Question: "How much in degree's has the earth warmed ? "

Reply: It is more about, ‘how much has it warmed in comparison to what? Why did that warming trend happen? How long might it take to reverse the warming trend?’

Question: "How much in cm's have sea levels risen?"

The short answer: since 1990, by 3cm per decade.

Reply: Again, the question could be rephrased to, ‘After excluding the effects of tides and ocean currents, why has the present sea level risen differently at different locations, and why? What period of history is the most relevant one for comparing to modern sea levels, and why? If the present rapid melting in glacial ice in the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf continues, by how much more will sea levels rise? If the disintegration of the remainder of the Antarctica continues, by how much more will sea levels rise, and why will that sea level rise be distributed differently on different parts of the globe?’

These are some of the questions that oceanographers and climate scientist have researched. They are all top people in their respective fields, who spend their lives devoted to observing the way things are and how they change. They then give their knowledge to the rest of the world, in the hope that we will use it wisely to make good decisions that will improve the outcome for the entire ecosystem.
At a philosophical level, I agree that no individual should have the right to say they are the “owner” of any speck of matter anywhere in the entire universe, and if you want to pursue that way of life that is commendable. At a street level of life, what really happens is that people get caught up in ignoring nature and try to control and own it.
Cheers, David
Last edited by davidh on Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Tracker » Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:32 pm

davidh wrote:After excluding the effects of tides and ocean currents, why has the present sea level risen differently at different locations, and why?


Woo there horsie ! Hold that thought !

The Climate-Change-Proponents cant answer the question "What sea rise" by implying that there is such but at different places, and corresponding to falls elsewhere..

Surely " TIDES " are only caused by extra earth forces, in association with centrifugal forces caused by the rotation of the earth.

It is going to take a GREAT deal to convince this little black duck that tidal differentials now exist and that it has been influenced by climate change...
The only exception being change caused by convective ocean currents, possibly causing "Wells" and "Back-ups", behind and in front of the currents. but are these not changing all the time anyway?

We are talking MEAN sea level -- Has it risen?

davidh wrote:If the present rapid melting in glacial ice in the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf continues, by how much more will sea levels rise?


The contra argument to this is
-- Firstly - is it??
and Secondly, is ice being deposited elsewhere?

This is almost the analogy of the "Sea Level Rise" being called "Unequal Tidal Differences"..

posting.php?mode=reply&f=19&t=735&sid=b585fcc180a22bd9b26e6852596cbbdd#

" Well there is Sea-Level-Rise, 'somewhere' and there is a fall 'somewhere' .."

Does anyone actually know what the MEAN-sea-level rise is and the mean-Ice-Total is.. ? ..
If it is just a relocation effect, then I feel quite at ease with nature !
I am not having a go at anyone -- Don't get me wrong -- It's just that I do bristle a bit when I hear of experts suggesting or implying "Well - there is change - but it's not quite what you would expect.

It's like a Medico Type to whose News-Letter I subscribed.. He had all soughts of different and plausible suggestions for medical ailments, and then he wrote:---

'SUNSHINE CAUSES MELANOMA.' Just the opposite. In studies all over the world, as sun exposure increases, malignant skin cancer risk goes down. In the sunniest parts of Australia, lifeguards have lower skin cancer rates than office workers.


Wot-a-fool -- He won't be getting an Easter Card from me...posting.php?mode=edit&f=19&p=5283&sid=2937cff742cebe2876e57dd76c3a3bd4#
.
.
Last edited by Tracker on Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Joey » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:56 pm

MichaelB wrote:Hi Joey,

Anything that happens on Earth that doesn't cause it to explode could be considered within its design limits I guess. Even if it was totally barren and unable to support life as we know it, that could be considered within its design limits. However, it could be argued that the fate of the planet is destruction with or without our influence as part of the Universe's grand design - the sun fizzling out, blowing up, asteroid impact, whatever and ultimately, all our "green" efforts are for nought except to buy some time while we figure out how to get off this planet before such an event.


Exactly we don't have a clue but it doesn't stop us arrogantly believing that by changing a couple of the operating parameters that we will have complete control.

MichaelB wrote:
But these issues and whether humanity is the caretaker of Earth, is any more important than any or the sum of all its other inhabitants and whether it should be regulated to accommodate our continued existence is another question entirely and probably one worth discussing in a different thread as that would be an interesting discussion in itself - but brace yourself, as it is likely one that would start bringing issues of religion into it and then we'll have a real challenge on our hands in moderating that one.

We have already assumed the above role give lead to present discussion , but as beliefs , faith and assumptions are not relevant to facts there should be no moderating such a discussion.

MichaelB wrote:It's whether human activity is influencing the pace of climate change and the implications of that change that is the topic of this thread and one we should probably stick to in order to stay on track with this discussion.

The other questions you ask about sea level and temperature rise are certainly valid.


These question cannot be answered factually , because they have been variable for as long we have asked these questions , they will continue to be variable and we will continue to ask questions. at most we can chart what we know but in the scheme of this planet it may be only one trillionth of the necessary considerations.

For example can someone remind me what us humans did to rectify the last ice age to make the planet suitable for our inhabitation ?
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby MichaelB » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:21 pm

A reminder:

It's whether human activity is influencing the pace of climate change and the implications of that change that is the topic of this thread and one we should probably stick to in order to stay on track with this discussion.


No straw man arguments please :).

Folks are welcome to set up new threads to discuss other aspects if they feel its necessary, same basic housekeeping rules will apply. An example topic could be "Climate Change - Does It Really Matter?" or something :)
Michael B.
Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

Check out Energy Matters' current solar power specials
or try our instant online solar quoting system!
User avatar
MichaelB
Energy Matters Team
Energy Matters Team
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:03 am

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Joey » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:07 pm

davidh wrote:Hi Joey,

Thanks again for your ever probing questions.

Question: "How much in degree's has the earth warmed ? "

Reply: It is more about, ‘how much has it warmed in comparison to what? Why did that warming trend happen? How long might it take to reverse the warming trend?’

Question: "How much in cm's have sea levels risen?"

Reply: Again, the question could be rephrased to, ‘After excluding the effects of tides and ocean currents, why has the present sea level risen differently at different locations, and why? What period of history is the most relevant one for comparing to modern sea levels, and why? If the present rapid melting in glacial ice in the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf continues, by how much more will sea levels rise? If the disintegration of the remainder of the Antarctica continues, by how much more will sea levels rise, and why will that sea level rise be distributed differently on different parts of the globe?’

These are some of the questions that oceanographers and climate scientist have researched. They are all top people in their respective fields, who spend their lives devoted to observing the way things are and how they change. They then give their knowledge to the rest of the world, in the hope that we will use it wisely to make good decisions that will improve the outcome for the entire ecosystem.
At a philosophical level, I agree that no individual should have the right to say they are the “owner” of any speck of matter anywhere in the entire universe, and if you want to pursue that way of life that is commendable. At a street level of life, what really happens is that people get caught up in ignoring nature and try to control and own it.
Cheers, David


David ,

Thanks again for your replies , as I already knew there are are no answers because it all depends on variables and base rates we were never given and will never know.
For all we know there could be a warming trend where earths temperatures are heading towards 250C , just because it is ideal at this time for human existence does not mean it's designed or intended to be for any set time period.

You are so right "people" get caught up trying to own and control everything rarely asking the tough questions that I have been for fear of realizing our true insignificance.
I totally agree the world has millions of people that have dedicated their lives observing the way things are and have changed , the key word is "observing" that is all they have ever done all they will ever be able to do apart from sharing their observations.
They have to justify the billions of dollars they cost by claiming these observations will help make wise decisions but when and how can only be answered they say with more observation. , Observation is reactive or the reaction to past and happening events. To date that is about all we can lay claim too.
At very best observation has created some theory , with this we actually think we can change the entire earths dynamics , It's just ludicrous and most of it coming from people we consider to be intelligent.

Maybe slugs or tree frogs already have the answers or some other yet to be discovered organism is changing earth climate to suit themselves , or "may we be struck down with lightning" if we admit the sum of what we really know and can control is nothing.
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:42 pm

Thanks Tracker, I wasn't really meaning to give any answers in that post, but just to expand the questions to the current level of the known science. I suppose that means I should explain what is known about sea level changes a bit further.

We cant answer the question "What sea rise" by implying that there is such but at different places, and corresponding to falls elsewhere..
Surely " TIDES " are only caused by extra earth forces, in association with centrifugal forces caused by the rotation of the earth.
...
The only exception being change caused by convective ocean currents, possibly causing "Wells" and "Back-ups", behind and in front of the currents. but are these not changing all the time anyway?


As you suggested when you referred to convective currents, sea levels rise in a particular location if the temperature of the water rises in that particular location (irrespective of anything else that happens with melting or freezing in other locations). If the water cools, the level goes down again. Currents of warmer and colder water can cause different changes in sea level in different places. This is a separate issue to tides, which is why I said “excluding tides”.

It is going to take a GREAT deal to convince this little black duck that tidal differentials now exist and that it has been influenced by climate change...

I’m sure I didn’t say that in the question; I specifically excluded tidal influence.
We are talking MEAN sea level -- Has it risen?

Yes, both the global mean ocean temperatures and mean water levels have been rising (I’ve previously given a CSIRO link about this), but this does not explain the complexity of what can happen when large chunks of ice start melting. What I was getting at was simply that it is more complex than just looking at trends in mean rise. Unfortunately, this is where most people get lost in the debate; they try to see it as something that either is or is not happening, not something that is part of a global process that is constantly in flux, with many factors to be accounted for.

“If the present rapid melting in glacial ice in the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf continues, by how much more will sea levels rise?”
The contra argument to this is
-- Firstly - is it??

There is convergent evidence from independent studies of increased water outflows from the deep undersea glaciers in the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS). This means that more than one team of scientists, each working independently from each other, found that WAIS glacial ice melting is accelerating. The most recent published data was within the last few months.

These WAIS glaciers extend for 2000 meters below sea level (2km), plus there is ice that sits above sea level. The WAIS contains 10% of Antarctic ice. If even 10% of Antarctic ice were to melt ... are sure you want to read this next bit? ... than average ocean level rise around the planet would be ... more than our coastal towns and cities could survive. At the moment the rise in sea level has been relatively minor, with only occasional major storm surges combined with high tides.
and Secondly, is ice being deposited elsewhere?

Some people thought this a while back, partly because there was more surface level ice around other parts of Antarctica, but more recent evidence has found that the increased surface ice is from a worrying trend in disintegration of Antarctic ice in general. The current evidence is that the rapid water ejection from the melting WAIS glaciers is not being reformed as ice elsewhere.

So, no, it is not being deposited elsewhere.

Cheers, David
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:22 am

On, 08 February 2010, when debating the ‘climate sensitivity question’ at the Brisbane Institute, Christopher Monckton said the following:
“Now, I am going to try to boil that down, as every policy maker not expert in the field [of climate science] must, to one question which seems to hold the key to the entire debate, and that question is known to climate scientists at the climate sensitivity question; that is the question: How much warming will you get if you increase, as we are increasing, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? ... We ... concede that carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases which possess or mimic a dipole moment, will cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere. We concede also that human kind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention; so we are not trying to pretend that we are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing; we’re not going to try to pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming; what we are going to contend is that on the measured evidence the amount of warming it causes is around 1/6 to 1/7 of what the UN [IPCC report] thinks it is. Now that is a rather startling claim ...” Christopher Monckton
See: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2 ... 811681.htm

A couple of things are noteworthy here ... Christopher is not disagreeing that climate change and global warming are happening. He freely admits that it is getting warmer. Clearly some parts of the science are not in contention as far as he is concerned.

Christopher also freely admits that he is trying to influence policy about climate change, and that he is not an expert in the field of climate change.

It seems rather odd to me therefore, that Christopher would cherry pick the bits of the science that suit his argument, but ignore the equally rigorously collected data that does not suit his argument. The models of global climate change say that CO2 from fossil fuel sources is associated with a much greater increase in average global temperature than Christopher is prepared to concede, and the models can only account for this by including human intervention. Christopher is trying to argue that the increase is from some other less well understood natural process.

So, global warming is happening, with no argument from either side of the main stream debate. The only argument is about why.

Cheers, David
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Tracker » Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:05 am

davidh wrote:So, global warming is happening, with no argument from either side of the main stream debate. The only argument is about why.


Total agreement from this ugly duckling.. I just like to know the facts associated with the claims..

The other claim that Lord Monckton made (if I recall correctly}, was that much of the ocean warming is likely coming from Geo-Thermal sources.. Even the latest dramatic (Chile ) earthquake would suggest that more is happening than just in the atmosphere. I think he also questioned the Chicken-And-Egg situation with Temperature and CO2. I think there was a suggestion that higher temperatures (from other reasons) was causing liberation of CO2, but then the contra claim, that Increased CO2 levels, promoted growth and hence CO2 capturing.. BUT - If the Malayans and South Americans are burning their forests faster than the rest of us can let nature heal, then we are surely doomed anyway !

What cheeses me off, is our Government.
Would you not think that IF they were as serious about the need for change, then they would be taking the most appropriate steps (even if unpopular to THEIR party affiliations) to ensure that OUR footprint was minimised.
Thank God, that I am not in charge, because I would have been spending all that wasted money on building Nuclear Power Stations (and newer forms of renewables), so that we can phase out "Coal Burners".
( I have money invested in Wave Power Generation - I want it to take of for the two reason - The planet's good and Mine )

The real dilemma would be the SALE of coal to other nations, who might have no financial capacity or technical ability, or security capacity to think or be allowed to use Nuclear Power..

What does our Government plan to do, other than a NEW TAX..?

If they had the guts, they would say "Sorry - This new tax will pay for alternate energy and Nuclear Plants...."

Why is it that ( I understand ) , so very many more homes in places like Scandinavia , have solar power and they are snowed in for months.. Our leaders are simply NOT SERIOUS about the alternatives....
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby PeterReefman » Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:58 am

Tracker I think the reason the Australian government/s aren't truly taking this seriously is that they know they're a reflection of public (voter) opinion, and sadly that opinion has been as much "all talk and no action" as any government.

Sure there's a lot of people doing what they can and even spending money they know they won't get back (on things like Green Energy) and that need to be applauded as loudly as we can.

But those people are still a minority. For every PV system getting installed I'll bet there are at least 10 plasma TVs getting bought. And for every person deciding not to drive but take public transport or a bike, there's many more that are going out and buying thristy SUVs.

I think that if there was a government brave enough to abruptly put the actions in place as required by science to truly do all we need, that government would be thrown out of office by that large group of "I'm worried about climate change but don't take away my right to use as much energy as I want" voters. And of course the network of denialists we see working in the mainstream media like Andrew Bolt, etc aren't helping either...

What we need is the abrupt change, but we can't have it in a democracy like this. No one (including me) wants to compromise that democracy (apart from the handful of socialist movements out there), so we're stuck with small incremental improvements, which of course aren't enough as far as the science is concerned...

The balance as far as I'm concerned is
    To make sure those incremental steps are the absolute best bang for buck in terms of environmental gains AND showing the public that a cleaner economy is a good thing.
    To do all we (meaning us and the government) can to inform and engage the public that climate change is worth actually doing something about
    And making sure that those in the denial industry get rebutted for every piece of misinformation they relentlessly spread.
PeterReefman
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:57 am
Location: Portland, Victoria

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

new solar power specials
cron