Poor David Cameron, not getting good press at the moment.

[Old Koreelah]

...Human climate change is negligible. The sun drives far more change than we ever could...

If only this were true. The impact of that "negligible" change (a couple of degrees C) will mean more weather extremes and changes to farm output- and it has already started. Past climate shifts triggered large human migrations. Hundreds of millions of people live in very vulnerable areas. As they start to move the current boat people problems will seem insignificant.

 

...Focus on pollution, PCBs, plastic bags in the oceans, old organophosphate sheep dip sites, leeching landfills etc...

Agreed. We could do far more to clean up other pollutants. (You may not remember that the same sort of people who are now warning of climate change overcame enormous resistance to start the anti-pollution movement).

 

.Let the climate sort itself out and just clean the crap up...

-or take responsibility for the damage our affluent lifestyle is doing to our kids' future.

 

Why the frantic defence of old, dirty technology when the new, cleaner alternatives are already affordable and creating whole new industries?

 

.CO2 only is a cop out, trees EAT it, it's not like it sits around for decade after decade like CFCs.

Do a little more research on rising CO2 levels.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Yes Kiwi the irony is that some additional CO2 is in every way beneficial to the environment and we are very far from optimal levels yet. As you say we would be best to concentrate on cleaning up actual physical litter, toxic chemical (like around the solar panel plants) and particulate pollution which seems to be what Col is referring to, not colourless odorless plant food.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

Do a little more research on rising CO2 levels.

I have. life does fine at 7000ppm+ Current levels are LOW compared to historical levels.

 

What the alarmists report is only the last hundred years, not the real record of the last few hundreds of millions of years.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

volcanos are a short term phenomenon like solar flares, again you are confusing weather with climate. The science on this is pretty clear now I can accept for personal reasons you wish to reject the modern world, you should move to pakistan, they will embrace you.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Let the climate sort itself out and just clean the crap up.

If you keep pumping billions (literally billions) of tonnes of greenhouse gases into a planetary atmosphere many times faster than the carbon cycle of that planet can absorb them, on what planet and under what laws of physics will the "climate sort itself out"?

 

And a page or so back, Yes I was talking about gelogical volcanoes eruptioning rather than solar flares. It's not just CO2 out there, it's Sulphur dioxide and particulate ash and all the rest.

Sulphur dioxide and particulates from volcanos precipitate out of the atmosphere after a relatively short time and so their effects are short-lived. That has already been explained.

 

CO2 only is a cop out, trees EAT it, it's not like it sits around for decade after decade like CFCs.

Actually it does sit around for many decades. Your statement is simply untrue. CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere. How many trees, exactly, do you believe are "eating" the CO2 at 100km altitude - the upper regions at which anthropogenic CO2 has been detected? The extremes of CO2 circulation in the atmosphere were discovered by the "ACE" (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment) satellite team in 2012. The satellite measured atmospheric CO2 concentration for 8 years.

 

It would be good to get the basic scientific facts straight first and then attempt to construct the "anti" anthropogenic warming argument from there.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this is amazing, really giving the punters what they want. No wonder the queen was embarrassed being photographed giving the nazi salute

 

https://newmatilda.com/2015/08/12/what-happens-when-you-leave-nazi-quotes-tabloid-news-stories-readers-love-it

 

 

[dutchroll]

I have. life does fine at 7000ppm+ Current levels are LOW compared to historical levels.

What the alarmists report is only the last hundred years, not the real record of the last few hundreds of millions of years.

You can't be serious.

 

The last hundred years are what we have the most accurate CO2 and temperature records for and where the climate is warming more rapidly than we have ever been able to deduce in history. Global temperature changes back then occurred over many millions of years, not over a couple of hundred like in the modern industrial age!

 

At 7000ppm CO2 you are talking about the Cambrian Period. That's 500 freakin' million years ago.

 

There were no humans.

 

There was no temperature-sensitive agriculture.

 

There were no land plants.

 

There were no mammals of any description at all.

 

Most continents (which were differently arranged to what they are today) resembled desert.

 

Sea level was substantially higher than it is now (anywhere from 30-90m).

 

The luminosity of the sun was significantly lower than it is now.

 

There were massive changes occurring over many millions of years in the Earth's biosphere as gas levels (especially CO2 and O2) changed significantly. While there were periods of rapid flora development, there were also periods of mass extinctions of living organisms observed in the fossil record.

 

It is nuts - simply plain nuts - to even attempt to compare the Cambrian Period and atmospheric composition back then to the scenario now where humans, animal life, and supporting agriculture has evolved to be perfectly suited to the current climate and atmosphere. It's not even as good as an apples and oranges comparison. It's apples and primitive microorganisms. It's a woeful argument.

 

 

[dazza 38]

All this talk is great but unless you're all prepared to give up your aeroplanes, cars, trucks , boats, motorcycles ect and go back to the horse and cart. I don't see the point.

 

 

[coljones]

Climate Changes... it is what the climate does... The Romans grew grapes in the shadow of Hadrians wall and there used to be horse and sleighs trotting down the Thames through London. Dinosaurs strolled through cyacad forests with CO2 levels much higher than anything seen today.

Human climate change is negligible. The sun drives far more change than we ever could.

 

Focus on pollution, PCBs, plastic bags in the oceans, old organophosphate sheep dip sites, leeching landfills etc.

 

Let the climate sort itself out and just clean the crap up.

 

And a page or so back, Yes I was talking about gelogical volcanoes eruptioning rather than solar flares. It's not just CO2 out there, it's Sulphur dioxide and particulate ash and all the rest.

 

CO2 only is a cop out, trees EAT it, it's not like it sits around for decade after decade like CFCs.

there is a physical limit/finite amount of co2 that each tree can eat. the only way that trees can eat more CO2 is to plant more trees (increase the tree stomachs) Bob wanted lots more trees but there are those who want massive tree felling and land clearance. This reduces the capacity of trees to eat CO2. Cutting down more trees to pulp into cardboard boxes isn't so smart as thr life of a cardbord box before decomposition to CO2 is very short and using the byproduct of timber felling for firewood produces more CO2.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

All this talk is great but unless you're all prepared to give up your aeroplanes, cars, trucks , boats, motorcycles ect and go back to the horse and cart. I don't see the point.

Yes Dazza, we all contribute more greenhouse gasses than we should, but going back to horse and cart is not an option. Much more efficient technologies are already available, but are being actively resisted by the Old Guard.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

If you keep pumping billions (literally billions) of tonnes of greenhouse gases into a planetary atmosphere many times faster than the carbon cycle of that planet can absorb them, on what planet and under what laws of physics will the "climate sort itself out"?

 

Sulphur dioxide and particulates from volcanos precipitate out of the atmosphere after a relatively short time and so their effects are short-lived. That has already been explained.

 

Actually it does sit around for many decades. Your statement is simply untrue. CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere. How many trees, exactly, do you believe are "eating" the CO2 at 100km altitude - the upper regions at which anthropogenic CO2 has been detected? The extremes of CO2 circulation in the atmosphere were discovered by the "ACE" (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment) satellite team in 2012. The satellite measured atmospheric CO2 concentration for 8 years.

 

It would be good to get the basic scientific facts straight first and then attempt to construct the "anti" anthropogenic warming argument from there.

Dutch; using facts to convince believers is like trying to teach pigs to sing; it's a waste of time and annoys the pigs.

 

Trying to convince deniers that climate change exists is like trying to convince smokers that it is bad for them. They just selectively choose their "facts" (or invent them) to support their beliefs (in this case denial).

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Yes Kiwi the irony is that some additional CO2 is in every way beneficial to the environment and we are very far from optimal levels yet...

Oh dear GG. Woeful ignorance. Although increasing CO2 concentration will boost some crop yields it also increases ocean acidification which hammers coral reefs and other marine life. Just how much of God's Creation are you prepared to sacrifice with this enormous experiment?

 

 

[dutchroll]

All this talk is great but unless you're all prepared to give up your aeroplanes, cars, trucks , boats, motorcycles ect and go back to the horse and cart. I don't see the point.

I don't see the argument there at all.

 

Doing things more efficiently and smarter isn't an option?

 

not colourless odorless plant food.

Carbon monoxide is colourless and odourless too. So is sarin gas - a chemical warfare agent.

 

Are you advocating that colourless and odourless gases by default have no harmful effects? I assume you are, as otherwise you wouldn't have even mentioned those properties as a factor in determining the deleterious or beneficial effects of something.

 

 

[Marty_d]

All this talk is great but unless you're all prepared to give up your aeroplanes, cars, trucks , boats, motorcycles ect and go back to the horse and cart. I don't see the point.

Don't have to give them up. Just make them better. As it is, compare the emissions from 70's and 80's vehicles with modern ones (both cars and jets).

 

Have a look at the Tesla model S for example (http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/models) - this is no boxy Prius, it's a car with all the bells and whistles in the Lexus/Mercedes class, zero to 100 in 3 seconds, and 500+ km range. Yes it's currently $130,000 (drive away) for the base model, but that's probably in the same ballpark for equivalent luxury sedans.

 

Electric powerplants for LSA aircraft are becoming, if not common, at least unsurprising. Battery technology keeps improving. This will probably go to the boat market as well, I can't imagine people wanting to keep buying petrol outboards if there's a electric equivalent. Won't scare the fish as much either.

 

In terms of domestic and commercial buildings, improvements in LED lighting and appliance efficiency has already seen electricity use decrease. By the end of 2013 there were over 1.25 million PV installations in Australia.

 

The future is renewable, all we need is a government who can see that and will facilitate it. Obviously Tony "Coal is King" Abbott is not interested.

 

 

[facthunter]

We do a great job at cutting down trees, and advancing desert areas so the tree mouths are much less effective at devouring the CO2. Oceans have absorbed a lot of the CO2, up till now, where it forms carbonic and carbolic acids which are now at a level where much of the basic life in the sea is being threatened. Hard shells are dissolved in the acids mentioned. Carbon dioxide levels are measured and known. The greenhouse effects are not disputed. Methane is worse, and there's a few others, but the amount of fossil fuels we consume is just overwhelming the system. If we stopped tomorrow the problem would still persist for 100's of years. Coal (anthracite) is vitually pure carbon so worse than hydro carbons Methane is so bad it is better "flared". You can make renewable hydrocarbons/ lube oils from algae. All these fuels will get more expensive and probably create wars for possession of them so we avoid that scenario as well. Solar is at no cost and unlimited. as a source and NO residual polluting effects. What we are propping up is vested interests of centralised producers and distributors who want to maximise their profits regardless of the harm. Very similar to tobacco in nature and using the same tactics to deny facts. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

All this talk is great but unless you're all prepared to give up your aeroplanes, cars, trucks , boats, motorcycles ect and go back to the horse and cart. I don't see the point.

Vehicles only account for 1/3 of emissions.

 

 

[facthunter]

Most vehicles and power stations only use at best 1/3rd of the heat energy in the fuel. When you have the vast potential of solar the efficiency of each item isn't of as much consequence. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

If the protagonists against the scientific consensus here want to broaden their horizons, there are two books among many sitting on my bookshelf that I can recommend.

 

De Pater and Lissauer's "Planetary Sciences 2nd Edition" is a good intro into one of my favourite subjects (planetary science and cosmology) and has some introductory basics on planetary atmospherics in our solar system.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521853710?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

 

Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate" is much more advanced but is nearly 700 pages of very heavy reading on the physics, maths and chemistry. It has an excellent chapter on infrared radiative physics which discusses the greenhouse effect, thermodynamics, and radiative transfer in gas molecules.

 

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/principles-planetary-climate?format=HB

 

Prediction: right-wing sceptics wouldn't buy these books, because why would you do that when you can just browse "climatechangeiscrap.com" to get your science knowledge? It would be Tony Abbott's favourite website!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Books? yeah nah, dazz is very happy with reading the daily terror, tells him what he needs to think.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Much more efficient technologies are already available, but are being actively resisted by the Old Guard.

This is true, Greenies are strongly opposed to nuclear energy - nature's power source.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

GNu: can you get insurance against nuclear accidents? If so, why not? Look how well Fukushima turned out...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

GNu asbestos is nature's blanket.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

This is true, Greenies are strongly opposed to nuclear energy - nature's power source.

Oh Dear (again). What's natural about the incredibly expensive, complex, dirty processing required to create fissionable fuel rods? If you're talking about fusion (a quite different process to current nuclear power generation) then I 300% agree with you: that's what powers the sun... solar power.

 

 

[dutchroll]

This is true, Greenies are strongly opposed to nuclear energy - nature's power source.

Once again I cry for the science.

 

Nuclear fusion is nature's power source. Nuclear fission is the human's power source.

 

They are fundamentally different processes with enormously different ramifications.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

We are effectively sitting on a radioactive ball, why not make use of it. Geothermal = nuclear power (pretty much by fracking I might add) and somehow to greenies this is good. But do this above ground in a controlled manner and it is bad.

 

If you don't like the extra CO2 (personally I think it is entirely beneficial) at this point you have two viable options:

 

1) Go aborigine, sit in a cave and rub sticks or

 

2) Nuclear energy