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 > General Discussion > Copenhagen Delegates: Use Green Energy and WALK HOME!

Copenhagen Delegates: Use Green Energy and WALK HOME!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Cont’d

Horus

I have been working in the field for over forty years, Horus - mostly things to do with the hydrological cycle (my research interest is in land, ocean, atmosphere coupled systems). Things that impact on the hydrological cycle - rain, snow, el nino, pdo, walker & hadley cells, ocean currents, drought, floods, evaporation, humidity, yada yada - as it all applies to land use/management practices. You know; agriculture, soil moisture, river flows, crop yields, catchment management, water quality, salinity, desertification, yada yada.

Yeah, a lotta water under the bridge has convinced me, Horus. Not all anecdotal either, most of it hard empirical science that, taken altogether, gives me confidence in saying that humanity's actions (and inactions) over the last 200 years are having an adverse impact on not just the environment, but on the planet's whole ecosystem.

What nails it though, imho - is that at the tropopause, the stratosphere is cooling whilst the troposphere is warming – check it out.

And the song – one of my favourites, thanks.

_______

Arjay

That 911 stuff, all very intriguing – I’m not informed enough to make a contribution, sorry.

Why don’t you start another general discussion thread?

_______

Crackup

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is wrong. Can you suggest a way to explain the science better?
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 14 December 2009 6:32:09 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
Q&A: I DO understand that there has been reasonable evidence presented by various scientific studies indicating that the Global Warming issue that the world is getting so frantic about is a direct result of increased solar activity and is affecting all the planets in the Solar System, not just planet Earth.

Regardless of whatever COMPULSORY TAX is invoked upon the various world communities, the ultimate result will not be altered and the world will continue along its current path, as happened many times before throughout the history of this planet.

The gullible passengers climbing aboard the Rudd/Wong rollercoaster of Carbon Emmission "Control" are the same elements who believed that 911 was carried out by Bin Laden, John F Kennedy was assasinated by Lee Hervey Oswald, Diana and Dody died as a result of bad driving, and the invasion of Iraq was justified!

Unfortunately throughout history there have been literally billions of people who have been conned and manipulated into believing that white is black and black is white, purely to sate the appetite of the monsters who exist simply to attain massive wealth and power at the expense and ultimate starvation of the unsuspecting innocents, who believe everything that these manipulators tell them.

Anyone with half a brain would have to smile witnessing George W Bush with his bandy legs and ear-piece being instructed on which three word sentences to use when addressing his nation,....and to think that this clown had the power to plunge the world into nuclear holocaust, should the Puppetmasters decree!
Posted by Crackcup, Monday, 14 December 2009 9:01:16 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
Q&A, wuth your wide knowledge, you would no doubt, be aware of the recently revelled 2 degrees C "correction" added to the Darwin temperature record, to give Darwin the APPEARANCE of an increase in temperature, in the recent record.

Every week we find more such alterations, such as the whole New Zealand record. In every case the "correction" is upward in the recent record.

Despite the fact that the heat island effect has dramatically increased the temperature in many urban recording stations, we are yet to see any corrections in the downward direction.

This continual change in the true record, & the disappearance of the original raw data must make any thinking person a little suspicious of the scientist/activists in control of this data.

The fact that they then discuss how best to lie & cheat, adds more fuel to the fire.

There is no way that I could ever believe any of their cr4p/research, until their entier workings are exposed to verification by anyone who wants to look. The fact that all this was paid for by the tax payer gives them no excuse for secrecy. We can now trust our scientists about as much as we trust our government.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 14 December 2009 10:36:07 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
Crackcup: "is a direct result of increased solar activity and is affecting all the planets in the Solar System, not just planet Earth"

I guess you must realise all climate scientists are fully aware of this increase, yet almost all reject it as an explanation. The Sun is now 30% brighter than 4 billion years ago. The rate of rise of the Sun's temperature is about 0.0000000225 degrees per year. Currently the planet is warming at 0.1 degree per year.

Interestingly, the Earth's temperature has remained remarkably stable despite the Sun's increasing temperature. If you want to know why, read http://j.mp/7cc9ja

Crackup: "Regardless of whatever COMPULSORY TAX is invoked upon the various world communities, the ultimate result will not be altered and the world will continue along its current path"

Carbon trading is modeled on Sulphur Dioxide trading. Contrary to what you imply it was very successful at changing the path we were going down.

Crackup: "Unfortunately throughout history there have been literally billions of people who have been conned and manipulated into believing that white is black and black is white"

We agree on this. What we don't agree on is who is being conned. You apparently think raising a tax on ourselves which is then ploughed back into society, as taxes always are, is some sort of disaster. I agree we are better off allowing the economy to direct where funds are best applied (the GFC notwithstanding), if possible. But when it isn't possible funding infrastructure via taxation (eg roads) clearly hasn't been a disaster you seem to think it was.

Letting yourself to be conned by Exxon and other major corporations into allowing them to inflict great damage on the world while leaving us to pay for the consequences is far worse. To me, this is no different from allowing a chemical factory to dump its waste into a river for free, and having the tax payer fund cleaning up the resulting mess. Far better to insist the factory fund the cleanup itself. If that is best done via a tax on its products, so be it.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 14 December 2009 11:41:03 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
Crackup
Psst! a word in your ear , someone you’ve been in discussions with on this thread (who shall remain nameless) has told you:
“Carbon trading is modeled on Sulphur Dioxide trading. Contrary to what you imply it was very successful at changing the path we were going down”
You might like to have a look at this link, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2009/2750919.htm paragraph starting: “Larry Lohmann: However, there's a lot of differences between the sulphur dioxide scheme and any scheme which would use cap and trade to reduce global warming gases.”
Not all is as represented!

Q&A
Thank you for your forthright reply.

I was recently reading about the hole in the ozone —noteworthy because:
1) It involved many of the opinion leaders now pushing AGW .
2) It involved similar predictions of dire consequences, and
3) Many of the predictions proved wildly inaccurate

Here are some examples —courtesy of Panicology by Briscoe & Aldersey-Williams.

Al Gore: “What will it do to our children’s outlook on life if we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?” –never realistic!
Al Gore: Due to the hole in the ozone “ Patagonian fishermen are catching blind salmon” – now discredited!

Scientists employing modelling:
“Both the extent of the depletion and its latitude came as a surprise to scientists , WHOSE MODELS HAD LED THEM TO EXPECT to see the first evidence of ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere above the tropics”

-Iconic bodies employing “hard empirical science”:
-“In 2002 NASA predicted that repair of the Antarctic hole would only be detectable by 2020”
Since then it has opened and closed a number of times and now appears to have stopped growing.
“Annual monitoring since then has revealed no clear trends and suggests that ATMOSPHERIC SYSTEMS ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN SCIENTISTS HAD HOPED”
( I am well aware of the international agreements & resultant restrictions on CFCs --- and so was NASA when they made that prediction!)
This is not to deny the hole –rather to highlight how our experts often get it wrong

TBC
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 6:30:22 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
Q&A
You say: “ humanity's actions (and inactions) over the last 200 years are having an adverse impact on not just the environment, but on the planet's whole ecosystem”
I am with you there. The question I have is the extend of the impact on the atmosphere.
A good reality check is to consider the --the percentage of CO2 generally acknowledged as arising from anthropogenic factors.
If you were seeking to treat some other affliction would you make such a secondary source your main focus?

You say: “What nails it though, imho - is that at the tropopause, the stratosphere is cooling whilst the troposphere is warming – check it out.”
It certainly is a symptom of something – but the questions remain: is it anthropogenic or natural? & is it short term or long-term?
You say: “We also have very good accounting systems” to measure this and that --- so said the executives of Enron!

I have doubts that many of the natural sources of GHGs can be accurately measured.
For example: “experts” can make any number of cocksure statements about how much volcanic sources emit or how “all” their emissions’ have a higher C13 signature.But when one considers the remote location of many of these sources, the variability in the sources and the fact that new ones are being still discovered –the latest a volcanic belt between OZ & NZ, a few short years ago– a prudent person is inclined to take claims that: “they know it all” with a very big grain of NaCl.

But having said that, none of the above is an argument against us reducing waste or pollution or widen our energy base.
Though, it could be a good argument against the Copenhagen approach which entails the selling to the world of the narrative that the climate villains are responsible for all woes, and the others are innocent victims and whose over population, poor farming practises and corrupt governance has no bearing on their plight .
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 6:32:51 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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