The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mayans and the end of the world > Comments

Mayans and the end of the world : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 11/12/2012

Neither side of the global warming ‘debate’ has been well served by the media.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
"Why do the hardline environmentalists have such a monopoly on virtue?" Sounds a little paranoid Malcolm. Personally, I find the great thinking majority of - so called - "Warmists" are also thinkers and people who produce or invest. Nobody really wants to see an end to capitalism, especially in favour of communism. What the vast majority of people I have spoken to want is a restructuring of existing business models to protect resources, lock up carbon and prevent the planet from warming. There is already far more evidence than not that climate change is occurring and not, as many would like, at some convenient time next century. Look around and see what has already occurred globally and what other countries are doing to mitigate these impacts. The debating finished years ago and the world is getting on with the job of surviving and, dare I say, prospering from the new incentives. Australia has more sunshine hours than just about any country on earth and yet we still burn and export coal. Even the poor bankrupt Spain has a massive solar-thermal power station. Time to move before we get left behind... Oh! but then, that is business as usual I suppose.
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:39:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with much of this article. This statement is worth highlighting:

"Anyone who opposes the new guard is a right-winger and a neo-conservative. In other words, these are not propositions to be debated in a rational way, but are seen as self-evident truths with the infallibility of religious dogma."

My interest is in rational policy. I believe we've been trying to implement bad policies to mitigate CO2 emissions for the past 2 decades (starting with Australia's commitment in 1992 to the 'Toronto Targets' - i.e. Australia commits to cut its CO2 emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005).

There is enormous uncertainty about climate science. Uncertainty about the problem is a given. Uncertainty about the proposed policy is inexcusable.

But that is exactly what we have. Enormous uncertainty about whether the proposed polices will make any difference to the climate. Most people do not believe that carbon tax and renewable energy will make the slightest difference to the climate. Most people also realise it is virtually impossible to get world agreement to penalty schemes like carbon pricing and emissions targets and timetables.

Bad policies:
- Penalty schemes
- Targets and penalties
- Taxes, penalties and restrictive trade policies
- Carbon pricing
- Renewable energy
- Smart grids
- Aid/bribes

Good policies:
- Reward schemes
- 'No Regrets'
- Free trade
- Globalisation
- Wealth creation for whole world
- Adaptation
- Remove impediments on low-cost nuclear
- Developed countries develop low-cost, low-emissions alternatives to fossil fuels
- Produce them commercially and compete to produce them for the world – competition to bring costs down and improve the technologies

Adaptation is the main component – it will improve conditions almost immediately, whereas good mitigation policies may have an effect beyond 50 years.

Developing countries need free trade and infrastructure strengthening (e.g. improved governance), not aid. Giving underdeveloped countries aid is equivalent to giving an unemployed person the dole rather than skills development and a job. We give out aid while restricting trade. And we block development of the least cost way to reduce emissions. We have it backwards.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:40:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rationality is in short supply these days yet it seems that everyone claims a slice of that pie. Someone has to be right or less wrong.

The behind the scenes machinations of the anti-populationists has come to the fore just a few minutes ago as Sandy Kanck from the Unsustainable Unpeople Collective has been caught trying to merge the SPA with the poor old Democrats.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-11/former-democrat-expelled-by-party/4420564?section=sa

They REALLY need those numbers to get party status. Now there really are a couple of Mayans there.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This writer is so clever he is difficult to understand, however the main problem with the climate debate is that there is simply no achievable solution that is acceptable to the greens.

As the recent meeting at Doha demonstrated effective international action just is not going to happen in a time scale of less than decades, if it ever happens at all. Although other posters have talked about completely overhauling the capitalist system, this also isn't going to happen. If we can't limit emissions internationally we aren't going to switch to other systems or ways of thinking, whatever they may be.

The only possible solution is to dump all the emissions limiting stuff as a distraction - most of it is ineffectual anyway - and switch to adaptation, if and when any of this global warming thing actually affects how we live.. By the time any effect is noticeable (assuming it occurs) the economy will be much stronger and better able to cope with change, than if we stuck to efforts to limit emissions.

This isn't a matter of agreement, it is now the only solution. Anything else would simply be harmful.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alas, no Curmudgeon, we need to create the market forces to drive adaptation and new technologies. The Greens won't like anything anyone does so you might as well go full steam ahead with wind power, solar, electric cars or whatever.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:12:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Leigh says:

"There is already far more evidence than not that climate change is occurring and not, as many would like, at some convenient time next century"

There is no evidence; AGW has been disproved:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

Generally AGW and renewable energy supporters oppose capitalism which is a merit based system where ideas and effort which are better get better rewards; neither AGW is true or renewables work so any money given to AGW and renewable supporters is at best crony capitalism but mostly obsecene waste based on ideology.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:33:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Real science always has the edge over pseudo-science because real science gets simpler as we grow our understanding. As the CERN PA clearly demonstrates, hypothesis, test, repeat confirm.

It is the unification of physics into ever simpler forms that tells scientists they are on the money. So electricity and magnetism become one and the same force, the electro-weak force. And so it will progress until we reach an understanding of ever unified physics. I was impressed to see the each of the tests matches the mathematical proof of being correct to 10 to the power of 24. Now that is called real scientific forecasts.

The warmertariat on the other hand are going in the opposite direction, they offer ever more outrageous predictions that get more and more complex and more contradictory. In the end all they have to offer is? Yes, you got it, more predications.

Nothing can highlight the dilemma for the warmertariat more that the Mayan Calendar because it puts the whole lot of them in the same intellectual zone of “ancient mystical tosh”. So when the going gets tough for the warmers, they just up the exaggerated forecasts a bit more.

Come to think of it, when you see the “bongo brigade” at the various climate talks, there is an uncanny resemblance to the Mayans.

Scientific forecasts, good. Forecasts by scientists. Mayan.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:39:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Over the last few years there have been some large claims made by the global warmers '

Yes Malcolm and unfortunately they have not learn't from their soothsaying. The money is to good. Same soothsayers were warning of ice age back in the 70's when I was at school. To think they have the hide to criticise religion when they cling to their made up dogmas and keep a straight face when predictions have proven to be totally false. So many gullible.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:59:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A study of past events and their causes, allows us to predict probable outcomes!
If Z+y= x, then the reappearance of z+y, will yet again =x!
The things we can and should do, are; reform and vastly simplify the tax act, to make avoidance impossible.
A very simple stand alone expenditure tax, set at a painless 4.8%, will collect around 25% more NET revenue, and simultaneously add around 7% to the average bottom line, currently ripped away by inordinately expensive compliance costs.
And an expenditure tax will work just like a jettisoned carbon tax, inasmuch as, a our spending patterns match our own personal or corporate carbon footprints.
The additional revenue, will allow us to build new age nuclear power stations, without delay.
And mothball coal-fired ones ahead of their use by date, even if that means compensating investors?
We need to jettison thoroughly disgraced extreme capitalism and the downward spiral towards the lowest common denominator, and replace it with cooperative capitalism.
Cooperative capitalism will allow us to jettison extreme capitalism.
Without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We need to lever the laziest hands of so-called free enterprise, from energy and capital, and return these two to the public domain, as once again, the peoples' property.
Anything else should remain fair game for the innovators and entrepreneurs!
One would think that, boom and bust economies, two world wars, a Great Depression and the more recent GFC, was already enough evidence that we are getting a few things wrong, and need to embrace essential economic change.
I don't expect the world to end, at least not until we've done all the gift giving and over indulged in the so-called good life, replete with the occasional technicolour yawn, the odd hangover, a couple of dozen alcohol related road deaths, and other rejoicing time "normalities"?
Nonetheless, wise men would still adopt the precautionary principle; and indeed, become proactive and ahead of the curve, instead of reactive, lest once again, z+y, will once again =x, or extermination!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 11:00:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"Scientific forecasts, good. Forecasts by scientists, Mayan."

What a strange sentence.

By that, I'm presuming that you think laymen are the people to listen to on climate. Scientists actually study the science and - dare I say - have a modicum of expertise in their specific areas.

You seem to think that "expertise in specific areas" of climate science should rule out any veracity on the subject.

Interesting.....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 11:12:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty, you are so funny. So, let me get this right. “Z+y= x, then the reappearance of z+y, will yet again =x” Yep!

I think you’ll find that your formula predicts no change, it is the status quo. We will always end up with “x” unless you can show proven variables of Z or Y, which probably explains why those of us who went to school think the warmers are scientifically wrong. Anyway, you can always bypass that and give us yet another prediction?

But as you say at the end of your post, if we don’t buy your math “wise men would still adopt the precautionary principle”
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 11:30:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talking about disgraced belief systems, Mayan, Christian, Mooneism, Whateverism.
The Mayan world ended or rather their empire collapsed because of climate change.
As their numbers grew, the Mayans chopped down more trees, to make way for more agriculture.
They failed to understand that rainforest, depends on rainforest to recharge or make reliable rain, which for a few centuries, supported their unique way of life, replete with human sacrifice and flawed belief systems.
Their world, and their barbaric empire, ended long before the 22st day of December, 2012!
They ran out of reliable water and had to relocate; where is debatable?
Not all that long ago, most Christians, and conventional wisdom, held that the world was flat, just six thousand years old and at the centre of the then known universe!
To contradict the cannot err wisdom of the Church, was at the least, to risk excommunication; or at worst, ritual stoning, being hung drawn and quartered, being burnt at the stake, or tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
[Tar boils or melts, at around three times the temperature of water!]
Science and critical thinking, has put a lot of this garbage where it belongs, in the rubbish dump of history.
Nonetheless, even today, a flat earth society exists in down town London.
Flat-earthers, like most deniers, seem able simply ignore the irrefutable evidence, if it refutes their belief system; and cling like babies clutching a security blanket, to ancient or thoroughly disproved or incredibly unscientific belief.
There are none so blind-,-.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 11:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

You say,

“By that, I'm presuming that you think laymen are the people to listen to on climate. Scientists actually study the science and - dare I say - have a modicum of expertise in their specific areas.”

No, I’m saying the exact opposite. I would not fly in a passenger jet that was built on consensus, I do not support any scientific “predictions” built on socialized science. It matters not if those scientists have a “modicum of expertise” of even a great deal of expertise. If they cannot offer proof they must demonstrate they are searching for it. That does not include “predictions” for political ends.

Real scientists produce “scientific forecasts” to an incredible degree of proof, pseudo-scientists produce “forecasts by scientists”. Here is a forecast for you. The warmertariat will fade away along with the climate feasts.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 11:58:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty,

“Talking about disgraced belief systems” which we were not but a great try for a diversion.

Now, now Rhosty, you cannot have a disgraced belief system. A belief system has absolutely no requirement for proof, evidence or facts otherwise it can’t be a belief system can it?

I can see where you are coming from though, you “believe” in warming so you are trying to redefine the word “belief” to accommodate your irrationality. Nice try though.

Tea break over my boy, back on your head.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ooh, the return of Robespierre and the takeover of climate science by the long forgotten Commies. How dramatic.

Please remind me, who are the catastrophists again?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl
Didn't quite understand your post.. the greens want the wind power stuff, although there are real question about whether mass use on an isolated grid will save any carbon at all.. the point I was making was that the economy would naturally adapt, if it is left alone.. any attempt to create the conditions for adaptation will probably end up being counterproductive..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Neither side of the global warming ‘debate’ has been well served by the media."

This is a joke, right? With daily stories of doom and disaster in the liberal media as they fight to restore their crumbling relevance?

The only way the AGW side could have been better 'served' by the media is if Fairfax, the ABC, the Guardian and the BBC had agreed to cage-fight in public for the right to osculate the rumps of Al Gore and Michael Mann.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"On 21 December 2012 the Mayans said the Earth and its inhabitants will undergo a ‘physical or spiritual transformation‘, which includes, but is not limited to, being consumed by a black hole. It was ever thus."

No, they didn't, to the Maya, December 21 is simply the end of a long (calendar) count, the apocalyptic fantasies and bizarre accretions are all modern delusions, like climate change denial. I'm still waiting for an OLO article from a climate change "sceptic" who actually has qualifications in climatology, they appear to be an endangered specifies.

BTW, the Maya (not Mayans) probably had plenty of time to predict their own demise as it was, according to the latest research, due to a prolonged and devastating drought--climate change perhaps? So there are lessons to be learned from the Maya by those who bother to do the appropriate research.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,
You say,
<
“No, I’m saying the exact opposite. I would not fly in a passenger jet that was built on consensus, I do not support any scientific “predictions” built on socialized science. It matters not if those scientists have a “modicum of expertise” of even a great deal of expertise. If they cannot offer proof they must demonstrate they are searching for it.”
>

I suggest you give up flying immediately. Planes are built by a process of consensus. First the principles of flight were built up over the first part of the 20th century by consensus. Secondly the the engineering principles relating to building a safe aircraft are the the result of consensus of numerous groups. Finally all the work on an aircraft is checked that by at least two people that it meets the consensus on what is the accepted standard.

Some 35 years ago it was calculated what the effects of adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere would likely be. Those predictions have since come to pass. It is simply impossible to deny although some still persist in trying to do so. It is sad that so many people chose to ignore the warnings of the scientists.
http://io9.com/5899907/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate

The scientists tell us that if you double the amount of CO2 in the air the surface temperatures will eventually rise by around 3c degrees. The most that we can reasonable adapt to is an increase of 2 Deg C, and that is expected to occur when co2 levels reach 450 parts per million in the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions we will reach that figure in less than 30 years. This means that if we do not start now on creating a low carbon economy we will be in very serious strife.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 1:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bit of common sense, please.

As mac correctly points out...

>>...to the Maya, December 21 is simply the end of a long (calendar) count<<

And what do you do when a calendar runs out?

You buy a new one.

Simples.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 2:03:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>And what do you do when a calendar runs out?<<

You party like it's 1999. From wikipedia:

>>Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI), notes that "for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle". She considers the portrayal of December 2012 as a doomsday or cosmic-shift event to be "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."<<

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 2:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair says:

"Some 35 years ago it was calculated what the effects of adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere would likely be. Those predictions have since come to pass. It is simply impossible to deny although some still persist in trying to do so. It is sad that so many people chose to ignore the warnings of the scientists."

Complete and utter garbage; first, they are not scientists but advocates; for instance Matthew England:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/agw-more-lies-professor-england-and-abc.html

I mean if they're not going to get something as basic as this right then anything else is beyond them.

CO2 simply cannot do what AGW demands it do; Beers Law, Hottel's principles, negative feedbacks, Maximum Entropy production etc; there are a host of proven physical processes and laws which repudiate the 'science' of AGW which is nothing more than tainted models. But none of that is going to change the 'minds' of suckers like warmair.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 2:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair what garbage.

Even the ratbags at the IPCC have claimed that if you double the CO2, you increase the temperature by 0.7c. They have been unable to actually prove this, but no matter.

What they then claim, in an attempt to get a scary enough scenario is that this will generate more water vapor in t6he air, & this water vapor will then increase the temperature further, their positive feed back myth. This is one of their tipping points.

Unfortunately for them, any real research conducted on water vapor increase all tells us that it is a negative feed back, & cools the atmosphere, bringing all back to the starting point.

I know it is hard to grow up, when that means turning your back on a much loved religion, but you must try
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 2:43:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,

Those people partying on New Year's eve 1999 thinking that they were celebrating the end of the 20th century were a year early. The Maya would have been appalled!
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 2:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In the last 15 years there has been considerable work done on global weather patterns but we are still a very long way from understanding the mindboggling complexity of these systems. Even so, there appears to be enough science to make some reasonable calls based on probability.'

Malcolm, you've an open mind, let's discuss this.

I think here is a considerable body of work that has assessed global weather patterns over at least the last 600 years.
It is the work undertaken by RN personal from around the time of Francis Drake and probably includes the knowledge of even earlier, notably, Venetian and Portugese Mariners.
For a grasp of the mechanics of weather and climate a reading of a few books on the topic of Meteorology by former RN Officers is enlightening.

One thing is inescapable: RN officers always define weather and climate. That is something no climate change advocate, to my knowledge ever states. That's fundamental in any science.

It always surprises me that there are two topics that are always covered in great depth in RN sources, but do not seem to have similar emphasis in any analysis of changing weather patterns and climate by climate change advocates.

They are ocean currents and clouds.

While often reference is made to the Southern Oscellation in regard to weather, there is little emphasis on the currents and attendant currents affecting that particular weather pattern or the other thousands of ocean currents throughout the world. Some act independantly and some act in unison, for a varietly of reasons. All affect the weather and climate. All have exhibited changes over many centuries.

The only relatively recent and independant research on clouds and the sun's cosmic rays effect on cloud formation, that I am aware of, is from Henrik Svensmark et al. from the 1990's. Their theories contradict man made climate change and haven't been included anywhere in the warmists climate change oththodoxy. Their work is complex, involved and difficult to follow.

Cheers
(Yep I'm an ocean solo sailor)
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 5:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yup, Z+ Y will always = X, given no variables!
In this case, that of an earlier extinction event, Z was Tons of carbon in the atmosphere, y was the warming it produced, and the X was the annihilation event, the formula precipitated.
However, it was not the carbon per se that created the problem, but rather the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect promotes very vigorous plant life, almost if carbon was a super fertilizer, which in turn adds more moisture to the atmosphere, which acts like a thermal blanket.
[An acre of trees will add 2.5 times the evaporate, of an acre of open ponded water, to the atmosphere.]
If the air is dry, particularly during winter, we get frosts, whereas if there's a cloudy night, we get none!
Therefore, cloud or atmospheric vapour traps heat, the foregoing example, irrefutable evidence.
Further, in a series of endlessly repeatable experiments, one can take a cubic metre of air and remove all the Co2, [carbon,] from it, the measurable drop in temperature will invariably be 0.03C.
Demonstrating by endlessly repeatable science, that carbon on its own, traps very little radiant heat, or is a very poor insulator.
Whereas, if one removes all the water vapour, the temperature drop is always 30C, proving that water vapour, a terrific insulator, is the real culprit in global warming.
This is exacerbated by the ice melt, which seems to be an exponentially increasing effect, well beyond climate science, worst case scenario predictions?
As the ice melts, less of it reflects less radiant heat back into space, whereas the increased expanse of water, actually stores more heat, exacerbating warming outcomes.
Even if one disbelieves the science, the years of comparable satellite imagery, demonstrates a very marked reduction in Arctic ice, or the rapidly retreating glaciers, the world over.
Therefore one contends, one can and should observe the precautionary principle.
The changes advocated, will boost economic outcomes, and wealth creation opportunities, and indeed, provide sustainable profit producing alternatives, which will still continue to serve mankind, well beyond the end of oil.
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 6:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 10 days it'll be the New Equinox. It'll be the Equinox 4,821,428,572. Yahooo, Pop, pop, bang, whizzz, Yippie! After 10226990 days, in 10 days it'll be the New Equinox. Whoo Hoo. I guess we'll all be out banging s & Pans & marching up & down the street like we did for New Year when we were kids.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 8:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice article, it sounds good that there are some one who can think for these type of topics.
Posted by Jessica Larkin, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:21:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,

This experiment you refer to about extraction of CO2 and water vapour, would you be so kind as to perhaps provide me with a link, an online reference, if one exists? You've mentioned this before and I'm interested to investigate the parameters used. I'm also interested to know what method they used to separate out the individual constituents.

And Jayb,

I can read that you're very excited (or cynical) about an imminent equinox. Look, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but we're not due for an equinox for another 6 months or so. But hey, what the heck, go celebrate anyway.

Cheers.
Posted by voxUnius, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:18:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Look, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but we're not due for an equinox for another 6 months or so.<<

3 months. The southern hemisphere will have its autumnal equinox on March 20th next year. In 6 months we get our winter solstice on June 21st but before both of those we have our summer solstice on December 21st. Hippies and pagans and new age nutjobs usually like to celebrate the solstice but since they all believe this Mayan prophecy nonsense they'll probably be cowering in their bomb shelters.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:13:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silly Mayans… they didn't even prophesy the end of their civilisation by 900 A.D.

Though presumably some survivor noticed after it was too late.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:27:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hasbeen

There is science and there is garbage. The majority of comments I see on this site are garbage.

You say

“Even the ratbags at the IPCC have claimed that if you double the CO2, you increase the temperature by 0.7c. They have been unable to actually prove this, but no matter.”

Your comment starts out by insulting the hundreds of scientists that took part in the climate review undertaken by the IPCC. You then get the figure wrong for the direct impact of CO2 on the climate (range 0.8 to 1.2 best estimate 1 Deg C)
You then fail to understand that this figure is arrived at by experiment.

You then say

“What they then claim, in an attempt to get a scary enough scenario is that this will generate more water vapor in t6he air, & this water vapor will then increase the temperature further, their positive feed back myth. This is one of their tipping points.”

The facts are that for every 1 deg C increase in temperature we get an increase in water evaporation of 7%. Water vapour being a strong green house this enhances the warming effect. This is actually called a forcing in climate science.
Tipping points have nothing to do with this. A good example of a tipping point is the Arctic sea ice, as ice it reflects 90% of the suns heat back into space but as open water it absorbs 90% of it
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:36:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking about the end of the world, please read the following: It involves you!

The Condition of Human Rights at the International Setting
By Professor Francis A. Boyle

“Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany.

The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the U.S. government and its nefarious foreign accomplices in allied governments such as Britain, the other NATO states, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Georgia, Puerto Rico, etc. If not so restrained, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War.”

Francis Anthony Boyle, an American (born 1950), is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He delivered this speech at the Puerto Rican Summit Conference on Human Rights –December 09, 2012. See ICH for the full text
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:41:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony,

"The southern hemisphere will have its autumnal equinox on March 20th next year."

Of course it will. It serves me right for trying to be a smart ass first thing in the morning. I'm gonna stay in bed late in the future. This early morning gig is strictly for the birds.

Cheers.
Posted by voxUnius, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:37:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antrhropogenic Climate Change equals HUMAN CAUSED climate change.
No one disputes this.
Therefore the amount of change in climate is roughly proportional to the change in the number of humans.
You can't dispute that logically.
Therefore If women are forced to only have one child per lifetime and men to understand and acknowledge that more than one fruit of their loins is nothing but climate change then climate change will cease.

Although this too is logical the entire populace suddenly turns to VIOLENT opposition.

The problem is that the human limbic system is so hard wired for sexual pleasure in men and reproduction in women that only in the microsecond they feel the bullet to their head or the frizzle of the neutron beam will they accept the TRUTH of Climate Change. But then its too late.

The ONLY alternative hope depends on Green Energy which by the Second Law of Thermodynamics ( You can't lift yourself by your bootlaces) is an impossibility unless backed by infinite coal and oil supplies for mining, manufacture, transport & maintenance issues involved with HARVESTING low density energy scattered over VAST spaces.

As supposedly rational beings its TIME to suck in a little fresh air to the limbic system, see this truth and act responsibly.

Continued,
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continuing..

Further, Population Dynamics and Climate Change Dynamics, change with population.
The reality is very much like the Geiger counter voltage V Counts(population pressure versus climate change incidents) curve:
The counter starts counting at a point corresponding approximately to the Geiger threshold
voltage
from there follows a “plateau" with little change in the counting rate as the voltage (population)increases.
Finally a point is reached where the self-suppressing mechanism no longer works (WAR),
and the counting rate rapidly increases until the counter breaks down into a continuous
discharge (Global Conflict).

Post WWII was low population pressure/voltage due to war losses but now the pressure is dangerously high yet politicians still hark back to the immigration and baby bonus days of the Menzies era.

In order to ensure stable operation, the counter must be operated at a voltage corresponding approximately to the mid-point of the plateau. In analogous population terms this is midway between 2012 and 1945 populations, IE around a 1979 population of 3-4 billion people.

That means women and men must maintain single child families till this population is reached. Then a return to 2 child families could be negotiated to maintain replacement levels.

As things stand All CONCEPTS OF our FUTURE are pure political hubris and selfish intent hiding behind a very flawed concept of DEMOCRACY and a pro-life HUMANITARIANISM that allows & encourages us to use all the resources of the children YOU keep having knowing full well those children will die fighting wars for their share of what's left after You're gone.
My biggest fear is that human beings are so corrupt that they will allow populations to increase,satiate their demands and die putting on a good show of pretending they still care about their children and grandchildren. Surely if there is a HELL thes human PIGS will find it!
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and as is usual nobody talks about ocean currents, cloud formation and cosmic rays.

especially you warmair and those 'hundreds of scientists that took part in the climate review undertaken by the IPCC'.

All of whom also refuse to acknowledge the proven historical scientific fact co2 concentrations increase after warming takes place.

doh...why do I ever bother with the imbecilic rantings and crap from the IPCC mob?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 4:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty

don't believe the crap about Artic ice cap melting.

I intend to undertake a sailing east west traverse of the famed North West passage. Apparently I have a window of 4 weeks.

Now Ranald Amusden did a motor driven west east traverse against the prevailing weather in 1901. Now listen carefully ...

he had an 8 week window.

oops somethings not in kilter here ... is it? What do you think? Is the ice receding more now than in 1901 or less now than in 1901?

So much refutable crap from the warmists ... eh?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 4:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

A little more on the issue of the lag:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 4:58:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a proud climate sceptic and my main gripe is that I cannot see how anyone can make a logical and rational decision when much of the info is passed through the distorting eye of the media.

I believe we should reduce carbon emissions as part of a general precautionary principle but this is not a popular path to take. On one side it's not enough and on the other, it's akin to treason.

What I do find surprising on OLO is the amount of hostility by pro-environment groups to almost any form of alternative/renewable energy. Why is that?
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 5:16:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Which do you think will happen first: the end of the world via nuclear war or the end of the world via global warming?

Humans are fixated on the bear trying to break down the door and don't see the poisonous imperial snake behind them.
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 5:31:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G - "Which do you think will happen first: the end of the world via nuclear war or the end of the world via global warming?"

Goodness gracious me Mr G - neither.

Both are figments of the irrational minds of guilt ridden lefties, who wish like hell that something shockingly bad will happen to everybody to punish them for being a part of humanity. When will these people ever get over their insane concept that the world is going to end?

We're doomed! We're all doomed!

Where do they come from?

Yes, of course, the educational institutions.
Posted by voxUnius, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
voxUnius, I can just see you on the sloping deck of the Titanic calling out, "Don't worry folks. Nothing is wrong. A whale has surfaced underneath us and, in a few minutes, the ship will right itself and we'll all go right on dancing and enjoying ourselves."

The world is full of flat-earth idiots like you, people who can't join the dots, who live in some other reality, who can't see the bus coming until it runs over them.

Don't bore us with your willful ignorance!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutta said "Now Ranald Amusden did a motor driven west east traverse against the prevailing weather in 1901. Now listen carefully ...

he had an 8 week window.

oops somethings not in kilter here ... is it? What do you think? Is the ice receding more now than in 1901 or less now than in 1901?
So much refutable crap from the warmists ... eh?"

Mate, don't bother posting such drivel. Now listen carefully.....

Aside from not even being able to spell Roald Amundsen's name, your account is wrong in every particular. The Gjøa expedition sailed (using the motor very sparingly) east to west (not west to east unless the Boothia Peninsular and Bering Strait have swapped places). It didn't set out until June 1903 and took till August 1906 to clear the Bering Strait. Amundsen took three years to do the passage, not eight weeks as you claim.

Looks like you've made a pretty good case that ice conditions in the Northwest Passage are much better now than in 1903-06. Or would have, if you'd had any kind of grip on the facts of the matter.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
johnj

I erred on facts. I should have checked instead of relying on my memory. Amundsen did take three years ... to undertake the complete voyage from, GREENLAND. However his traverse of the actual complete NWPassage was in under a total of 8 weeks. Amundsen stopped at King William Land (About two thirds of the way through the Passage) for two years, to learn the ways of the Inuit.
I think it may have been his prep for the Antartic expedition. His experience with sled and dogs would have proved invaluable.

It took him 8 days (In Summer)to motor/sail from there through to The Dease Strait below Victoria Island. That should give a quick guide to times and distances.

'From west to east the Northwest Passage runs through the Bering Strait ... Beaufort Sea, and then through several waterways ... through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. ... including the McClure Strait, Dease Strait, and the Prince of Wales Strait, ...then through Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait into the Atlantic Ocean.'

Although traditionally, and I think you'd agree, the passage is limited to traversing the areas where the passage becomes 'iced in'. I refered to a window to traverse that stage. From South of Baffin tthrough to below and just West of Victoria Island.

From Wiki
'On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute this is the first time it has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972.[4][15] The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008'

Amundsen completed the passage in 1906 without the need of an icebreaker ... either.

The intent of my original point, regardless of direction or times or method, was to show the current conditions in the NW Passage are nothing new.

I'm re-reading Amundsen's and his crew's Journals of the NW Passage. I briefly scanned one last night. Two are now available on the net. They are extraordinary and great reading.

Cheers and thanks for pointing to the need for me to make this correction.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 14 December 2012 10:49:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King wrote"On 21 December 2012 the Mayans said the Earth and its inhabitants will undergo a ‘physical or spiritual transformation‘"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29HCv_8kNM4

so now you know about Sumerians...the first culture to have written language...and we have a 12th plantet 'Nibiru'...6 times bigger than earth and solid Iron and volcanoes that cause thick cloud layer so does not reflect light(so difficult to see in night sky unless using infrared or the IRAS satellite images...)

now read 'the 12th planet' by Zacharia Sitchin...the first archaeologist to decipher Sumerian tablets and translate...this book is translation of one series of tablets...and ever since hes been ridiculed by mainstream and discussions to apply logic and reason to the information is somehow prevented...

so now you know about Nibiru is actually made up of many orbiting moons and objects...and annunaki live there and they travelled to earth to mine gold which when atomised in their atmosphere helped retain heat during nibirus deep space section of its 3600year orbit around sun...(the source for 'dragon' in various old cultures legends of firebreathing(nibiru trails lots of dust) flying object in night sky...

and Mayans seem to know the annunaki and nibiru...and knowledge of stars and orbits...and more importantly timings of events...and very accurate time calculator...the tolkien and zol calendar...calender stops on dec2012 dead...

so 2012...apparently nibiru will either pass very close to earth...or impact and shatter earth...and all matter on earth(incld us) will change to pure energy existance...and the mark of this about to happen is for 3days the suns dark...and 3nights there is sun like light...

if so just kiss your rear and be happy because theres nothing else to be done...if not then lets worry about why humans are consuming earth out of existence till it kills us too...humans are virus like...ever changing to consume...

now what this has to do with the rest of the article...please pray tell Mr Malcolm King...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 15 December 2012 9:11:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boy am I proud to be known as a sceptic.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 15 December 2012 11:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sam,

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered contribution to this debate.

You will soon get a call from the Sustainable Population Australia who could use your critical thinking skills to get a senator elected in SA. Believe me, they will do anything to get the numbers to be registered as a political party.

I have been collecting comments on OLO re catastrophes and Book of Revelation style anecdotes and yours is wonderful. Do you mind if I use it for future citations? I'm mindful that I only have a limited licence to 21 December.

Have you told Myers and David Jones about this because it's going to put an awful skid on Xmas trading figures?

Is Nibiru a metaphor for God or are you using it literally as per a dark undetectable planet moving through space which only the Mayans (apols Maya) knew about?

That 'pure energy existence' bit sounds fab.
Posted by Cheryl, Sunday, 16 December 2012 1:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl wrote "That 'pure energy existence' bit sounds fab"...wish it was but there's scientific basis to consider it...Einsteins equation E=MC2 is matter and pure energy are interchangeable...we know matter can exist with 'intelligence'(eg us humans)...so pure energy existing with intelligence must be also possible(eg concept of god...)

"Do you mind if I use it for future citations?"...I believe all posts come under fair use public licence policy so you can cite away...

"Is Nibiru a metaphor for God or are you using it literally as per a dark undetectable planet moving through space which only the Mayans (apols Maya) knew about?"

'detectable' is the issue...not by you and me...but with billion dollar equipment quite easily know if Nibiru exists...all we have is leaked pictures and claimed nasa scientists on the internet...but increasing evidence has been accumulating since 70's when hayileys comet was drifting off predicted trajectory that something with huge gravitational pull was affecting it somewhere off the belt of Orion star cluster...

just put key words eg IRAS(Infrared astronomical satellite) and nibiru...eg this comes up...
http://libertyforlife.com/nibiru/nasa_discovers_nibiru_in_1983.htm

then you assess its reliability as information...
sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 16 December 2012 5:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl wrote "You will soon get a call from the Sustainable Population Australia who could use your critical thinking skills to get a senator elected in SA"

forgot to comment on this one...

There is increasing evidence that leads to conclusion that democracy encourages groups to form...and these groups primary purpose is to survive...not to govern to effect an better individual...as such the resultant effect of democracy on the people is to view them as workers for benefit and the strongest of the controllers control the people..

a new form of government must then evolve...going by our past history and how governing of people changed and the why's...so basically I will not be able to contribute anything useful to the sustainable population Australia party...bar say sustainable population is one of the key requirements for future survival of humans not only on earth but anywhere(Nibirus got to my head :(...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 16 December 2012 6:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of one voice to JB: can read that you're very excited (or cynical) about an imminent equinox. Look, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but we're not due for an equinox for another 6 months or so. But hey, what the heck, go celebrate anyway. Cheers

Aww, Buggar. Anyway 10:11 on the 20th has come & gone & I'm still here. I guess I missed it or wasn't one of the chosen ones.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:51:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have anything to contribute...

Just wanted to have a post dated 12 December 2012, 12:12 PM [local summer time] in case there is/was an apocalypse.

Goodbye if there is.

Hello, there, if there isn't. And phew!

Now we just need to get past 22:12:43 AEDST tonight.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 21 December 2012 12:16:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY, the OLO clock is out of sync by 4 minutes.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 21 December 2012 12:17:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TmTrevor: 12 December 2012, 12:12

Dylexic? 21-12 2012, 12:12.

Yaaaay! we made it through this one too, Yahoo!. Now we've just got to wait for the next nutter to come up with a new date.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 21 December 2012 1:05:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dyslexic... no, nor usually innumerate. Obviously my extreme nervousness worrying in case I didn't get the comment posted in time - or survive to read it if I did meant I didn't re-read it for typing accuracy.

I'll try harder before the next armageddon.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 21 December 2012 1:27:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy