Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Today's global warming is well within historic range

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Today's global warming is well within historic range

    This in Climate Change Dispatch http://climatechangedispatch.com/hom...historic-range
    The fact that we are now developing land for residential use that is totally unsuitable has had a major impact on the so called natural disasters we are seeing.

    Build on low lying reclaimed land and sooner or later your going to get flooded.

    As nice as it may be to live in undulating hills surrounded by trees, your certainly putting yourself in harms way, sooner or later a bushfire will come through.

    Of course it's the marginalized in society that are forced to build/buy in these area's for economic reasons.

    Bindi Irwin is on the right track Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun with her views on over population, the days of populate or perish are long gone, nowadays it's more like populate and perish, of course we all know the subject of population control is taboo, sooner or later the subject must be addressed rationally and logically, not from a religious or political viewpoint.
    Last edited by Yelta; 28 January 2013, 11:51 AM.

  • #2
    Today's global warming is well within historic range

    Are we really valuing the opinion of a blogger (your link) over peer-reviewed science?

    This reminds me of another issue I have with mainstream media: why present "both sides of the story" when one has no scientific basis at all? Would someone claiming the sky is red be entitled to present their view in equal standing/coverage to the billion other people who KNOW it is blue?

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, yeah. 'The Australian' (the link you originally tried to provide) would be just about the last place I would go for objective analysis of AGW claims. The Oz's stance as champions of anti-AGW is infamous. Have a read of this
      The article still uses language such as "suggesting", "probably" and "alternative interpretations". In other words, they think there is no firm evidence to prove AGW. What is put forward instead is if that science can't prove conclusively that AGW exists then it must be wrong and we don't have to do anything. They totally reject the stance that it could be right.

      We are seeing unusual climatic conditions with record temperatures and catastrophic events. If you lived in a house in river valley, recent floods reached unprecedented levels that came very close to your house, what do you do? Do you do nothing and keep your fingers crossed that levels won't go higher still or do you take steps to deal with the possibility that higher levels could occur.

      Good on Bindi for speaking up on something she is passionate about but I haven't seen any of her scientific research or peer-reviewed papers on those issues, have you?

      Comment


      • #4
        My post was more about overpopulation (and living in inappropriate area's) rather than climate change, as I said pretty much a taboo subject, or perhaps unlike climate change it's just not fashionable.

        Comment


        • #5
          Today's global warming is well within historic range

          Originally posted by Yelta View Post
          My post was more about overpopulation (and living in inappropriate area's) rather than climate change, as I said pretty much a taboo subject, or perhaps unlike climate change it's just not fashionable.
          I'm happy to listen to the views of someone like Dick Smith, who espouses limiting population growth, as long as they firstly tell me how the working population in 20-30 years time is going to pay for the social welfare of the current working population, given increasing medical costs, longer lives, etc.

          It's very simple economics Dick, who will pay, if we don't increase the working population in the next 20 years?

          Comment


          • #6
            Today's global warming is well within historic range

            Well in that case I agree entirely: over-population is a serious, worldwide issue that is difficult to even discuss, let alone remedy. In Australia, we tend to equate economic growth with population gains - and of course anyone can see that isn't sustainable, but it's really hard to convince the public and the economy that "growth" isn't the be-all and end-all of a successful society.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's human nature to blame. A major bushfire, or flood, and we have to look for something to blame. Often that is ourselves, because it's also human nature to flaggelate ourselves because of innate guilt.

              So a couple of days of 4o+ heat, and it's global warming caused by us. A flood in Queensland, and it's the extreme weather which is a consequence of global warming. Which we, of course, cause because we don't want to live in trees or caves, because we like to enjoy the fruits of our technological evolution.

              The world has been around for billions of years, and cycles of extremes the likes of which we have never seen during our brief tenure on the planet have come and gone.

              Extremes of weather? What we have happened decades ago, happened last century and the century before. Australia... " a land of sweeping plains, of drought and flooding rains". Remember the poem?

              Population growth? Israel is built in the arid desert. The USA has $350 million people in the size of Australia. They built Las Vegas in the middle of a desert.

              Ithink I would also look beyond the views of a 13-year-old crocodile park girl or a former electronics chain owner and use my own common sense and sense of history to put the problems of the world into perspective.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jonathon View Post
                It's very simple economics Dick, who will pay, if we don't increase the working population in the next 20 years?
                Yes that is VERY SIMPLE economics ! ..far too simple..we will have to be a little more creative if we really want to solve some of our problems.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Today's global warming is well within historic range

                  Originally posted by blend52 View Post
                  Yes that is VERY SIMPLE economics ! ..far too simple..we will have to be a little more creative if we really want to solve some of our problems.
                  I'm all ears...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My post was more about overpopulation (and living in inappropriate area's) rather than climate change

                    Really? Then go back and look at the Subject line you gave this thread

                    Ithink I would also look beyond the views of a 13-year-old crocodile park girl or a former electronics chain owner and use my own common sense and sense of history to put the problems of the world into perspective.
                    Really? So the words of a 1904 poem written by a 19-year-old poet is what you base your
                    claim that there's nothing to worry about on? I'm afraid your sense of history is trumped by the fact that the global climate doesn't have one.

                    In the meantime, my commonsense says the consensus of hundreds of scientists, and the evidence they reply on, suggest there is something to worry about. Doing something to reduce the human footprint makes more sense than denying the science, trivializing the observable concerns and doing nothing about it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wow Steve, you're obviously passionate about this. And guess what? So am I!

                      Setting aside any scientific or non-scientific argument for the moment, it is selfish and irresponsible not to make personal and community efforts to reduce wherever possible the mess we have made or can make on the environment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dennis View Post
                        Wow Steve, you're obviously passionate about this. And guess what? So am I!
                        Actually Den I'm not 100% convinced on the AGW thing. I wish/hope it is wrong but, like you, I think we need to clean up our act regardless.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          For anyone doubting the human impact on global warming I would suggest you compare the meteorlogical statistics of any major metropolitan centre to the readings from a regional community just outside the metro area. Invariably the avg temps in large urban areas exceed those found in smaller communities in the same vicinity. Human impact on warming? You betcha... and that is on a micro scale. Given enough time this micro phenomenon will become macro in scale... and a very global issue.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vinitasse View Post
                            For anyone doubting the human impact on global warming I would suggest you compare the meteorlogical statistics of any major metropolitan centre to the readings from a regional community just outside the metro area. Invariably the avg temps in large urban areas exceed those found in smaller communities in the same vicinity. Human impact on warming? You betcha... and that is on a micro scale. Given enough time this micro phenomenon will become macro in scale... and a very global issue.
                            You could similarly have said 'compare the temperature 1 metre from a bonfire, to the temperature 100 metres from it'. Even without industrial production, cities generate and store lots of heat in buildings, roads etc....but this isn't directly related to the greenhouse gas related global warming stuff (that's a technical term). Maybe this was your point anyway.


                            On the population thing, there are often two related but different arguments that get conflated. There's the 'don't let Australia get overpopulated' line, and the global population issue (or at least the problems in a significant number of other countries). There's a valid question to be asked about the distribution of the world's population at a given time, but few easy answers I guess.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Disasters such as the current fires and floods are not new. The effects on us, our buildings, roads, crops and animals are worse when we ignore the forces of nature. Experts tell us that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase due to global warming, natural plus that induced by our activities.

                              It was evident to me during the previous Brisbane flood that the authorities have allowed many houses to be built on flood plains in recent years. Australia is big enough to have many places to build on that do not flood.

                              Because of past flood damage in NSW, often building development is not allowed where flooding is expected more than once in 100 years.

                              The original Australians had no helicopters like Elvis to water bomb the fires, so they regularly used fire to reduce fuel in forests and on grassland. I recently heard a retired CSIRO scientist, who studied bushfires for 50 years, say that hazard reduction burning should be done annually on 10% of all fire prone areas. In recent years it has been done on 1 or 2 %.

                              Another potential disaster is where sand dunes behind beaches have been flattened and built on such as at Surfers Paradise. The sand dune is a reserve of sand that naturally act as a buffer to prevent the sea moving inland. Without the dune, the beach can be lost and the sea will damage whatever is inland.

                              Barry

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X