Global warming - carbon tax - yeah right!
Found this on another fishing forum
DIY ocean heating
by Mark Imisides
December 7, 2009
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.
Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?
The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.
The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by greenhouse warming of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?
Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.
That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.
And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.
Thus, if the ocean were being heated by greenhouse heating of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).
Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.
So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?
The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).
The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).
All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.
If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?
Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.
Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist working in the private sector.
Mick
Posts: 501
Date Joined: 28/08/06
Tell you what Alan, that was
Tell you what Alan, that was one of the most incredible reads I've seen lately. I am one of the so called non-believers and the more of this stuff which actually provokes thought on the issue of so called global warming, rather than the KRudd and PWong show ramming another tax down our throat, the better. It's funny how its called Emission Trading Scheme, Wow trading means someone is going to make some serious money out of it. Government perhaps. Yet there are massive concessions made to big business, that being fossil fuel powered energy suppliers - the main offender, to which our bills will be overly inflated. Our so called leaders saw this coming apparently but did they stick their necks out and pour billions of dollars into new technologies such as solar or wind power. No. But here's another thing regarding wind power. With wind so prolific in this part of the world why is it not the preferred method to produce power ( backed by solar or gas fired generation ). The answer is simple. People do not want it in their back yard. People will whinge about the noise, the fact that it MAY upset nesting birds, cows will produce sour milk because they cant rest and graze in a relaxed envorinment. And you can bet your bottom dollar these people are the same people that voted for Mr Rudd and his ETS without looking at what the ETS is really about. Enough of my rant. I'm off to burn some styrofoam and release CFC's to see if we can get that ozone hole back.
Cheers Mick
If the lord did not mean for us to eat fish and game, he wouldn't have made them outta meat
The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. That's why so many people appear bright...until they speak.
nackers
Posts: 341
Date Joined: 23/10/09
soon
soon weel have a tax on breathing oxygen because we exhale co2 that contributes to global warming but if the sea level rises i might b sittin on beach front realestate with close access to man made reefs think ill put my house on pylons
Albee Mangles
Posts: 985
Date Joined: 20/05/08
What exactly is he saying in this ramble?
Tha the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or is he just reinforcing what we already know and making it sound like some new revelation?
Sometimes the brilliant are so blind they miss the basic.
southcity104
Posts: 1659
Date Joined: 27/01/09
Sounds like swine flu!!
My mrs is a nurse and reckons swine flu has gererated billions!!! its a common flu just like a hundred others. Yes people have died of it and if you didnt already know, people die of common flus every day.
Medicine companys made billions and now, whats swine flu???? Its forgotten...
"Its a life style job"
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Swine flu isnt quite a
Swine flu isnt quite a common flu, but its only marginally more deadly than common flu. I'm sure many more people have died this year from the common flu than swine flu. Though, the reason they were really worried about it being really deadly and being a dangerous pandemic was because they thought a lot less people were infected in mexico than actually occured. E.g. 30 deaths in 100 cases is very worrying, but if it turned out there were actually 10,000 cases, then its a different story.
As for the original article, the numbers sound like hes making sense, but hes simplifying the problem too much to be actually useful. First, he says the volume of the ocean is 1,500....L, but actually its 1,300...L. Ok, the numbers could be just rough, but he should have used the correct ones. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it doesnt change the figures massively so it doesnt matter all that much.
However, he said to raise the whole ocean one degree. Climate predictions show surface ocean temperatures. There isnt all that much mixing between the layers of the ocean and it can be pretty slow. So if we take the top 300m (which is where most significant impacts would be) we're looking at less than a tenth of the ocean.
He says some 'huge number of joules'. Keep in mind how much a joule is, most people need about 10,000,0000 of them in a day from food. The number he quotes as required (6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) is about a years worth of sunshine. I.e. the earth receives about that much energy per year from the sun. Of course, some bounces off, not all strikes the ocean, and so on. However, no one is predicting the whole ocean will heat up a degree even in 50 years. (the surface maybe, but not the whole ocean)
Anyways, rather than me explain the error of his assumptions, I'll let some actual scientists who are actually working in the field explain it:
Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean
Ocean heat content
He claims it is impossible, but guess what, we've measured the heat content, and its actually going up.
Ocean heat content graphs
He says why blame carbon when theres a 'more obvious culprit'. Well, maybe thats because the output of the sun has not changed enough to account for the observed warming ;). Climatologists have looked at the sun as an explanation, but have ruled it out based on evidence that this guy either ignored, or is ignorant of. Its like saying "science cant explain why the earth is round", when in reality he just didnt look hard enough and jumped to conclusions.
The sun plays a huge part in warming the planet, but if the planet is warming quicker than the sun is causing, then it cant be the sun. This link explains it. You can clearly see that the sun affects temperatures, but notice how towards the end of the century, the sun can no longer explain the increase. Carbon, however, can.
Also, why does a industrial chemist who works in the private sector (i.e. not research) have any sway. You'll find that the people who claim we are not causing any warming are journalists, company owners (particularily oil companies), and the scientists are ones not even in the same field (not even remotely so). The people who study climate (climatologists) all agree that we are causing it to some degree.
Consider it like an airplane. All the engineers and mechanics look at the engines and tell you its going to fail in the first flight. Now, some journalists, doctors and plumbers come along and tell you that they've looked over it and it looks fine to them. Are you really going to step on that plane?
Mark Imisides works with "Liquid detergents, stain removal, household chemistry, waste management". So why would you trust someone talking about climate who works with detergents and stain removals?
I really hope that all the scientists saying global warming is happening are wrong. It would be wonderful. However, I also wish that cancer was completely curable, but unfortunately thats not the case. I would love to be proven wrong, but the evidence says thats pretty unlikely.
Mark Imisides
Posts: 1
Date Joined: 16/12/09
It's amazing what you find
It's amazing what you find when you Google your own name....I never thought this article'd finish up in a fishing forum.
I'm afraid that none of the websites linked to prove a single thing. Only one
of them discusses the ocean heat content, but not its capacity (ie it says that
it's warm, but does not account for how it got warm). And most significantly, there's not the slightest scrap of evidence that CO2 has any influence on our climate whatever.
Of course all my calculations were ballpark figures, and that's the whole point
- even if we only allow for the heating of the ocean surface (a valid point)
and change the numbers by one or two orders of magnitude, we still get some
awfully big numbers, far more than the heat capacity of air can handle.
But this is high school stuff - any high school science student could have
worked these numbers out, and that was the whole emphasis of my article. I
don't expect anyone to have the slightest interest in my qualifications or
knowledge - it's the numbers themselves that are important.
But there is actually a second, and much more compelling reason why hot air
can't heat water (I didn't include it in the original article for space, and
also because it's a little more complex).
Essentially, hot air doesn't heat water, it COOLS it. This is due to a
phenomenon called the latent heat of vapourisation (heat is lost when the water
evaporates). It can be easily demonstrated with a simple experiment.
Next time it's a particularly hot, windy day, wet a t-shirt and put it
on. Allow a minute or two for it to warm to your body temp. Now go and stand
somewhere where you get direct sunlight but no wind (perhaps inside). You'll
feel the sun heating you up.
Now go outside somewhere where you aren't in direct sunlight, but the hot wind
is blowing on you. You'll suddenly get very cold. This is, of course, the
principle that evaporative airconditioners work on, and the reason that they
work best in dry weather (more evaporation, and therefore a magnified cooling
effect).
Thus, air that is heated by the greenhouse effect can only ever have a COOLING
effect on the ocean, and it is the lack of understanding of even basic science
such as this from people that make these apparently authoritative predictions
that leaves me scratching my head.
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
Priceless ;)
Welcome Mark
I sense your candor will be extremely refreshing
TWiZTED
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Welcome to the site
Welcome to the site Mark.
Always nice to hear a different point of view.
Need people to constantly scrutinise what we are told about anything, or else we just become tools of our own fears.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Mark, I too did High school
Mark, I too did High school physics, and I got a pretty good mark at it. I understand how evaporation works, I understand what you've done with the numbers. However, if you had actually bothered to read any literature on the subject you would find that there is in fact a large amount of evidence pointing to AGW. There is a general consensus among scientists who actually have a degree in climatology who are actively involved in climatology research that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing some degree of warning. Feel free to prove me wrong by finding some peer reviewed papers by climatologists saying that it is natural. If you're not finding the 'slightest scrap of evidence that CO2 is causing warming' then you need to look harder. Perhaps read through some scientific journals or papers on the subject?
Qualifications are important. You wouldnt take a medical diagnosis from a plumber. You are not a climatologist. To say that you know more than climatologists because you did high school physics and a simplistic back of the envelope calculation is a little arrogant. You are applying an overly simplistic analysis and concluding that global oceanic warming is bunk, but its the equivalent of the old joke "imagine a spherical cow....". A high school science education is just not sufficient to analyse the situation properly. Unless you have studied it extensively, you will just not be aware of other complexities that can change the outcome. There are good reasons why you cannot just apply high school overly simplistic thermodynamics to the situation and claim you have broken it. If we were stuck in high school physics, everything would behave according to newtownian physics without friction. In high school physics, an ant falls as fast as a bowling ball, but we know that in the real world, this does not apply. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. To think you understand it better than the experts because of your limited knowledge is again dangerous. Qualifications in this case are important to show that you have actually understood the complexity of the situation and have not missed an important thing not covered by the basics. Numbers are numbers, and someone with no qualificiations can come up with correct numbers. However, they cannot be correct if they make a fundamental flaw of simplicity. The ocean is more complex than what you have described. You have not even made any mention of infrared absorbtion to the ocean for example.
How about some high school science: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases contribute to the greenhouse effect (cause warming by trapping heat). Temperatures are increasing, and we are known to be pumping in large amounts of a known greenhouse gas.
You're now telling me that hot air cant heat water. Its one thing to say it cant heat it sufficiently, but to say it cant heat it at all.... are you sure you studied thermodynamics? In a closed system, if I heat the air, then provided the air is warmer than the water, then the water will absorb heat. In an open system, or a more complex system, the factors will be different of course. The amount of evaporation increases with increased water temperature. So in order for hot air to increase evaporation, it must heat the water (in order to raise the average kinetic energy of the water, which it does by adding heat). Where does all this heat go? It magically only gets absorbed into water molecules which will then evaporate? If you heat water directly (which the sun does) and then it is being covered in a blanket of warm air, then its ability to loose heat is diminished (evaporative effect is a function of wind speed, air temperature, water temperature and air saturation/humidity). Evaporative effects of latent heat increase with increasing temperature, yes, but they do not completely cancel the effects. Speeding up evaporative cooling is was actually a recommended method by Garnaut, but naturally it isnt enough (otherwise we wouldnt be warming).
As for the capacity of the air, dont forget the heat is being 'replentished'
The articles linked demonstrates that the oceanic heat content has increased. (Theres a surplus of 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J of surplus). This invalidates your argument as you claimed that it shouldnt increase like that (as it would take too much energy). So what is causing the oceans to heat then? If its not the air, then what? The suns power has not increased enough to account for it.
Even if you say that the heat of the oceans is not increasing, it still doesnt mean that the heat of the air of the land is not increasing. In such a case, to say that the oceans are not warming does not then mean that the air cant be warming as well. Warm air is still a pretty big problem (seeing as pesky things like clouds and crops inhabit it).
You said the link doesnt explain how the ocean gets warm. Did you read it? Thats exactly what the article is. Did you read the Hansen, et all, 2005 link? The article I linked ends with "To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed."
Anyways, this is a fishing forum, if you want to discuss why your high school education makes you supperior to those with a university degree in climatology, then perhaps there are more appropriate forums, with a much larger knowledge base on the subject that are better able to address the points. Feel free to PM me and i'll point you to another one if you'd like.
Answer me one question though. How many climatologists have you discussed this with?
If you want people to take yourself seriously, discuss it with people who do it for a living. Get feedback, find out if there are reasons you are not aware of that would invalidate the simplistic approach. If you really want to convince people, put in a peer reviewed scientific paper. If your calculations are valid, they will be taken seriously. However, if there are any flaws, they will be quickly pointed out.
Until then, you still seem like the plumber in my previous example who thinks he knows more about jet engines than the aeronautical engineers. Want to be taken seriously, then talk to those 'aeronautical engineers' to see if perhaps, just perhaps, you are wrong because you did not have sufficient knowledge of the subject (despite your overconfidence that you know more than the experts).
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Yes Matt, that is the
Yes Matt, that is the critical point, none of this guy's work has been peer reviewed so that just makes it coffee table, or fishing website chit-chat.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Didnt realise this was the
Didnt realise this was the copenhagen forum hahahahahahaha!
And to believing that everyone with a University is an expert in their field i think is crap. Hahaha just look at the Monash university professor that wrote a report on because Santa is depicted in advestisments riding in his sleigh all over the world in one night, not wearing a seatbelt and drinking brandy left out by people, that it encourages people to see that reckless driving, speeding, wearing no seatbelt and drink driving is ok. I'm sure this guy maybe an 'expert' to his university chums, but maybe he should take a look at the real world and maybe leave his world of Dungeons and Dragons. Hahahahaha.
No offence intended to people who do have uni degrees. Just that all of my civillian friends(yes i do have non fishing friends) went to uni and have degrees. Lets just say some now do jobs where i think with their level of 'expertise' in their field they would have been better off doing a trade appreticship. If you are one of my civillian friend who has a degree and are reading this, i didnt mean you :) i meant all the others. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
God i love when people become so passionate about somthing, they arn't willing to accept another persons views and have to try prove them wrong or discredit them instead of just accepting that this IS JUST THEIR VIEW.
Think this is how most conflicts/wars start.
What does eveyone think about the Iraq War HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Think i might go and kill some brain cells. All this smart talk hurts my head :)
Buz.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
That article on Santa was a
That article on Santa was a satire Buz ;) Perhaps written a little too subtley though.
For the record, i was a global warming skeptic, but I have reviewed a lot of evidence, which has convinced me that it is indeed being mostly caused by us. I will happily accept any evidence contrary to the point, but it has to be actual, scientifically verifiable evidence. It would be wonderful to be wrong. All the science says its happening though (media and people in completely different fields are different though). All that is required for science to be proven wrong is evidence. So far, evidence that all the warming is natural is just not available. Should people wish to present that evidence, they should do it via the scientific process of peer reviewed papers, and it will be accepted with open arms. Evidence trumps all (but only if its actual, verifiable evidence, not just claims.
As for university/experts. I see what you are saying Buz, but I dont think the average layman can really have a better understanding of climatology than those who have studied it for years. Having a degree/working in a field, doesnt automatically make you good, but when practically the whole scientific community involved in the subject are saying that its happening, maybe its better to listen to them when they all have a large degree of scientific consensus.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Haha yeah i know that the
Haha yeah i know that the Santa one was satirical, but thought it was funny that some 'expert' still must have spent some time making this satirical report. And worse some other 'expert' or politician might read it and think hey this guy has a point lets pursue this course of action.
Oh and believe me i am not a skeptic to climate change at all. Like you said i think the evidence in favour of it seems overwhelming and the evidenec against at little lacking. But i like to hear other peoples views anyhoo, and wont discount anyone, even if he is the local hobo down the train station. Because as i am sure you are aware alot of science genius's today, in their day were completely discredited and thought of as fools, eg Darwin, Galileo, Columbus.
But as i posted earlier MY VIEW is that climate change is inevietable, we cant stop it(though it seems we may have speed it up) only slow it down. I think more emphasis should be spent on devising strategies on how to cope with the changes not if but when they come.
And i do think the average layman can have a better understanding of something than someone who has studied something for years. Just depends what. I think someone who is close minded about something they have a degree in will always be worse than someone who is open minded and studied in their backyard/library/home on the internet, in books. Just remember all the literature and learning you get at a uni can be easily accessed and learned via other avenues if one is so willing to do so.
out wide
Posts: 1535
Date Joined: 30/12/08
Conned
It never ceases to amaze me what a mob of sheep we really are . If the media said so it must be true. What a load of left wing bullshit it is. We will take trillions of $ and give it to the bums of the world who cannot help themselves at our expence. The problem if it is there in the first place is easy to fix... stop breeding problem fixed. One child per coulple. Nothing eles will work other than going back to the push bike era and killing an animal for its skin so we can keep warm in winter. Na its nothing more than a great big tax for a great big bureaucracy we will never get rid of. Thats why the socialists are bullshiting us. If the bullshit sticks we are farked .
alfred
Posts: 3097
Date Joined: 12/01/07
One child per couple? I
One child per couple? I come from a country that had a similar policy 35 years ago. except it was 100% more generous - it was a two child policy. It worked, only problem is that it worked too well. It is the only country in the world that has a declining population atm - which creates other problems.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Not 100% sure which country
Not 100% sure which country you're refering to Alfred, but I think you may find it doesnt actually have a declining population. There are a few countries with negative growth rates.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
I personnally see global
I personnally see global warming as inevietable.
My reasoning?
We all know we have had ice ages right? Well the earth has had heat ages in the past too.
Seems to happen every few thousand years or so from what the experts say, usually each age is brought about by some form of cataclysmic event. Some have been shown to have been caused by massive volcano eruptions. Some by asteroids (Dinosaurs maybe????) Some they cannot explain why.
Aparently they found the records of the ice ages and heat ages in deep ice core samples from antartica.
That was what everyone feared about during the cold war too 'nuclear winter'. Same effect as volcano throwing up heaps of crap in the atmosphere and cooling the earth, but done with a s%@t load of nukes instead and its radioactive too.
You only have to look around at the earths geography to understand that at times in the past vast tracts of what is now land was underwater, most likely during a heat age when the polar caps were extremely diminished. Even vast areas of inland Australia were once inland seas. And Oz hasnt risen or dropped in height as a continent for millions of years apparently.
I guess what seems to be an issue for me is not the earth heating up. But from what we are being led to believe, it is happening at a faster rate than during any previous cycle. Which obviously makes it harder for nature to adapt to new circumcstances which usually takes a bloody long time. Oh well to my way of thinking regardless of what happens life will continue on Earth as long as there is gasses, water, and heat(sunlight or geothermal). Maybe not for humans though :O
So like i said i dont believe we can stop it, only try to slow it down and prolong it.
Guess we could always divert an asteroid to earth, or annoy some volcano to erupt!
Not an expert, just read lots or seemingly pointless stuff in the hope that someday i'll be on 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' hahahahaha!
Wazo
Posts: 84
Date Joined: 12/06/08
Brand New GST
Its just a great big fat tax perpetrated around a situation that cannot and will not be prevented.
To all you wankers that believed the B.S from Krudd at the election and voted for him.... you got EXACTLY what you asked for....economic mismanagement and increased taxes to boot.
Better start saving cause Kevvie coming for your extra 15%
It took us 15 years to dig ourselves out of the shit from the last time they were in power and the mess their making this time is irreversable!!!!!!
When is middle Australia gonna learn??
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
So little Johhnie for a 5th term was a better option?
Id like to see a comparison between Krudds handout money and the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
Politicians are all as bad as each other and while we have this fucked bipartisan system of democracy there will never be an outcome that suits everyone. What I mean by this is they should abolish the two party system where elected officials are pressured to toe the party line instead of supporting what their constituents actually want.
Anyway its stupid arguing about it from a money point of view since thats a fucking joke anyway. Inflation is just a tool since the money is printed on paper or plastic. Until our financial systems go back to something finite (ie gold coins) their ability to manipulate the power of the money your currently have makes it a sham.
Also to the points about solar/wind power, Solar cells currently require so much energy to produce that the power they produce in their working life is still at a loss. (Pretty sure thermodynamnics is to blame for this also:D). For wind power, even the netherlands with all their masses of wind generating farms only produce less than 10% of their energy requirements.
I am with Matt on this one. I hope that there is an easy solution or that we find out that it isnt carbon dioxide related, but I think we should do something rather than sticking our heads in the sand.
Whoever had the point about going to one child per couple is onto a winner as well, though it does have its drawbacks due to cultural habits (the one child policy creating a series of generations with more males than females as females were being aborted because males were luckier/more useful in agricultural society). There was a great doco on abc or sbs the other nights about muslims taking over europe without firing a shot, caucasians are breeding at a rate close to supporting the existing population numbers, while muslims are breeding to around 8-9 children per family and within a decade or two will have all the power by sheer weight of voting rights.
The best thing we could do collectively as a race is abolish all religion since its those wankers who are encouraging all this population growth in the third world regions for their upcomming showdown of biblical proportions. A distant second is to rework the financial system as said above back to a resource of finite supply so the first world cannot use it as a weapon on the third world.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Some interesting points
Some interesting points there. Though the energy payback on solar isnt anywhere that bleak. While solar cells used to have a net energy deficit, new technologies have allowed the energy payback time to be on the order of a few years (even less for certain types). Link. Germany I think is leading the way in terms of percentage wind power (but more is needed, like nuclear, but "oh noes, dem there nuclear power plants will melt our brains")
synthos
Posts: 522
Date Joined: 23/06/07
once upon a time
There used to be farms in greenland that are now slowly dethawing literaly that would imply global heating is on a cycle what I read is that we been heating up since about 1850's
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Yes but part of the point
Yes but part of the point concern is the current rate of change is unparalleled. Its interesting that most of the climate change denyers are in the +55yr bracket. I guess why pay a tax that you're never going to really see the outcome anyway?
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
I concur
And would also like to see a comparison of those figures with those of holocaust deniers too!
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15609
Date Joined: 29/11/05
yep
Agree with Buz as to the natural changes with the Earth, but to think we haven't sped it up is head in the sand stuff. Wiping out forrests, polluting the phark out of the environment - definately going to effect something, how accurately you can measure that, well!! Don't know how a tax is going to change much apart from put more money into govt coffers as most have said, but you just never know.
On the conspiracy theory above, wouldn't suprise me if the medical companies are conjuring up these flu's. A minor variation on the strain of a normal flu to make billions of dollars, certainly wouldn't put it past them. From an insensitive corporate view, the world has a few people to spare for wealth creation and economic stimulation...
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
UncutTriggerInWA
Posts: 2692
Date Joined: 05/09/08
Be informed and take an interest
For a start Wazo "To all you wankers that believed" I don't like being branded a wanker in a forum such as this for taking an interest in the preservation of our naural environment and the future we offer our kids.
The link below is well worth a visit. The video "The Story of Stuff" tells a few home truths about what we as developed countries are doing and, in particular, what we are doing to less developed countries. The saying "you cannot run a liniar system in a finite world" definately rings true and needs addressing. Doing nothing is bullshit!
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
I am not sure what the real answers are or if we are smart enough to develop them. Needless to say we must do something.
Vince.
Work smart and fish often.
Member and die-hard supporter of the mighty West Coast Eagles.
Mick
Posts: 501
Date Joined: 28/08/06
Just to set the record
Just to set the record straight, I'm not a "head in the sand" non believer but I do not think a tax is the way to sort the mess out, if it exists. And jamie , I'm 39 so I probably dont fit the over 55 bracket your talking about.
Heres another question though. With so much more CO2 in the atmosphere, would that in turn be better for the plantlife around us to grow more vigourously? Its proven that a higher concentration of O2 is better for our bodies on a cellular level ( to a point, of course), so would the tree's and shrubs of the world be better able to cope with a world of lower rainfall?
In all its good to debate such a thing but it seems that you get crucified for being a Non-believer and treated like a retard for questioning such an issue. As I said it could very well be true but I'm still typing on the same computer that the Y2K was going to kill off.
Ah the mind boggles
If the lord did not mean for us to eat fish and game, he wouldn't have made them outta meat
The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. That's why so many people appear bright...until they speak.
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Over 55s was a general
Over 55s was a general observation, not a pointed one.
Over half of the world's oxygen is produced by phytoplankton, rising ocean temps and acidity levels affect this.
More oxygen is not a substitue for more water.
The current rate of change doesn't allow things to evolve, or even migrate, to where things may suit them better.
Wazo
Posts: 84
Date Joined: 12/06/08
15% carbon tax
The carbon tax won't put the snow back on the glaciers
The carbon tax won't make the sea levels go back down
The carbon tax WILL put $70 billion into government coffers a YEAR and big business will be compensated for.
The people who WILL pay is you and me for every single bit of energy that we use.
Global warming is real and unstoppable with developing countries refusing to participate.
Our dogshit government simply wants to recoup some of the $450 billion surplus that you will all find out about in the next two budgets.
They've blown the budget and now the cash has to come from somewhere.
That somewhere is you.
It's a great big fat TAX...in a nutshell.
If you think Krudd is doing it for a greater purpose..
UncutTriggerInWA
Posts: 2692
Date Joined: 05/09/08
One thing is for sure
I think almost everyone believes that we have to do something to address climate change. The only liberal polly who seems to understand the current issues is Ian McFarlaine. The rest (well half anyway by 1) have rallied behind a bloke who denies we have a problem and a woman more interested in her own political career than what policies or who she should support as a deputy of a bedragled self-destructing political party. If an election were held now my opinion is that the liberals would take such a hammering they would become insignificant and not in a position to control anything the Rudd government decides to do about climate change.
I think we all acknowledge that we can't fix what has happened so far but we do need to do something to try to "cap" the problem so to speak. I am not saying that the current ETS is the answer.
Developing countries have been raped and pillaged for the good of the capitalist developed world for years now. This, IMO, is something they should be compensated for in whatever form. Let's not point the finger at them.
Vince.
Work smart and fish often.
Member and die-hard supporter of the mighty West Coast Eagles.
out wide
Posts: 1535
Date Joined: 30/12/08
Well Vince
I admire your consern for the pillaged ppl of the world. I hope you put your money into these countries and I am sure you do but I what to leave my money in my pocket thanks.
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
I guess it is two questions
Do you support the ETS or not?
AND
Do you believe in global warming caused by Co2 emissions or not?
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
easy.....
No
and
No
TWiZTED
Dreamweaver
Posts: 4688
Date Joined: 01/12/07
Jodes
I know we discussed this briefly a long time ago, I (really) would love to hear your reasons because I know you've been interested in GW for a long time. Sorry, didn't want to put you on (in) the spot (light).
Soon to be de "dreamweaver" ed!
UncutTriggerInWA
Posts: 2692
Date Joined: 05/09/08
OMG Jody!
LOL.
I'm back on my box again....
I think the term global warming is now dead and buried. It's been refined to climate change. I am as sceptical as many about statements made about the climate. Just weeks ago we heard reports out of Adelaide suggesting the heat wave over there was as a result of global warming or some other bullshit. I refer to such occurrences as "cycles".
Having said that of course I still remain very concerned about what we are doing to our world as a result of mass production and the willingness of developed countries to produce in less developed countries where standards are not set in terms of emmissions. Just take a trip to Siberia or northern China etc and see how you get on health wise. OK, so polution may not kill our planet but it certainly will kill us. Then I guess, we won't have to worry about ETS etc. I sit here scratching my head in frustration. Without a unified approach to this problem the corporates will keep on keeping on and nothing will change for the good. Whichever way you look at it we (consumers) will pay in some form or other...
Vince.
Work smart and fish often.
Member and die-hard supporter of the mighty West Coast Eagles.
Faulkner Family
Posts: 17860
Date Joined: 11/03/08
dont know about global
dont know about global warming but its warming up prety fast around perth today
. i feel its just a sign of the times. more people living in the world with more people full of hot air so the air temp will rise 
.
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
octopus
Posts: 38
Date Joined: 12/07/09
Check this out
I think people should watch this doco. It really helps put things into perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCUsaltatrix
Posts: 1075
Date Joined: 30/03/08
All the carbon tax in the
All the carbon tax in the world wont drop the temperature
All he carbon tax in the world wont change the polluters right now because they have exemptions to some of the largest polluters.
If it was legit there would be no exemptions.
It was hotter in medieval times. The water has been way higher than it is at the present. All the charts start in the 1800s, The charts should be starting 800000 years ago plus.
The Arctic is shrinking but Antartica is growing.
Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Actually they do have
Actually they do have temperature graphs going back hundreds of thousands of years or more. The charts since the 1800s are direct measurements (and we obviously cant measure before we had thermometers and recordings). See here and here.
As for the medieval warm period, its a bit of a misconception/myth. Also here and also here.
Its only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing. Antarctic land ice is shrinking. As a whole, the Antarctic ice is shrinking. Keep in mind that global warming does not mean all areas will get warmer and if they dont the trend is wrong, nor does it mean that each year it will get a little hotter sucessively.
As for exemptions, it does seem like granting exemptions to the worst means little effect would be had :(
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Yep im with Matt
Dendronology - the study of tree rings, and ice core sampling these are two of the most important tools we have because they can utilise both sets of data and accurately date and then align the data from ice cores taken at the north/south poles and trees growing anywhere on the earth, even Petrified trees like up at cervantes.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Mark with all due respect
Mark with all due respect your arguement mostly relies on the ineffectiveness of air to heat a huge body of water but I think there is a bit more to climate change, rising sea levels and warming oceans than that - so in my opionion is your major flaw may in fact be flawed. (incidentally warm air will melt ice effectively).
I read alot about how the scientific community does not agree on Climate Change and our influence on this but if you look deeper you'll find the ones that dont agree we are having an influence, are not working actually in the field of climate change let alone have any expertise in the field.
A vast majority if not all scientists who are experts in the area of climate change have no doubt we are influencing the changes we are seeing. That to me says a lot.
I also think the ones that are dragged out to dispute this should be asked where they are receiving their funding from (ie energy industries etc) and where their expertise lies. Personally I don't go to a podiatrist when I have a heart problem
My two cents on the issue
Cheers Paul
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
7739ian
Posts: 948
Date Joined: 25/06/08
Now we have
three things to avoid talking about at the Christmas party - Politics, Religion and Global warming. I am completely cynical about the developed nations doing anything that won't be at the expense of the under developed nations and as for Rudd's tax - it mainly goes to the big end of town and the biggest emitters. Luckily i'm old and will die soon.
7739ian
Posts: 948
Date Joined: 25/06/08
And!!!
my manky old carcase will emit more methane than a herd of Holsteins - in fact it does now.
Wreckless
Posts: 92
Date Joined: 02/11/09
Phew............. I wondered who that was
.