Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Today's global warming is well within historic range

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

  • flynnaus
    replied
    Originally posted by fruity View Post
    Well that's certainly true. Somehow the media has us questioning the facts of climate change instead of actually discussing the real issue: what are we going to do about it?
    I think this has actually been out there for some time but yes, the politics has ridden roughshod over the intent.
    Remember the following:
    • Recycling
    • Re-usable bags instead of plastic supermarket bags
    • Using CFC-free products to protect the ozone layer
    • Lead-free petrol
    • Electric or hybrid vehicles
    • Solar energy
    • Other renewable energy sources
    • The 'Carbon Tax' (which has the primary intent of reducing electricity consumption via the higher price).
    • Bike lanes (to encourage people to ride instead of drive)
    • Organic farming methods


    ...and many more I'm sure I've left out.

    Leave a comment:


  • fruity
    replied
    Today's global warming is well within historic range

    Originally posted by Yelta View Post
    Having said that, I'm not suggesting that the human race is not having an adverse affect on the planet as a whole, however I strongly believe that the media is whipping the uneducated masses into a frenzy and milking the resulting hysteria for all it's worth.
    Well that's certainly true. Somehow the media has us questioning the facts of climate change instead of actually discussing the real issue: what are we going to do about it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Yelta
    replied
    I have to say I'm a long way from being a blind follower of arguments of consensus.
    Most theories or idea's that collapse are preceded by general agreement during which the majority of people believed the failed theory was true.
    Long held beliefs are overturned almost daily across a whole range of scientific research.

    Having said that, I'm not suggesting that the human race is not having an adverse affect on the planet as a whole, however I strongly believe that the media is whipping the uneducated masses into a frenzy and milking the resulting hysteria for all it's worth.

    I don't believe that the natural disasters we are seeing now are unprecedented, many people are being forced to live (for economic reasons) in area's unsuited to human habitation, when the inevitable happens and the area burns or floods, the cry go's up, it's never happened before, or not in human memory etc, the fact is these area's have flooded and burned in the past, it's just that no one was living there.

    Only a fool would suggest we don't need to reduce our impact on the environment in any reasonable way we can, as I suggested earlier one of the obvious but largely ignored area's is over population, we are living on a planet of finite resources and cant continue in the belief that we have a right to procreate and a duty to extend human life to a point where we are no more than a burden on those around us, in the past infant mortality and old age took care of themselves, nowadays of course science has changed all that.

    There probably will be solutions forthcoming however a lot of us may well find them unpalatable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry O'Speedwagon
    replied
    Originally posted by Vinitasse View Post
    Barry, my apologies for any misunderstanding
    No apology necessary, but appreciated all the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry O'Speedwagon View Post
    Not intended to be 'button pushing'....was self-deprecating (i.e. my lack of a better term for 'stuff').
    Barry, my apologies for any misunderstanding

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry O'Speedwagon
    replied
    Originally posted by Vinitasse View Post
    My thesis was on the effects of microclimates and climate change on grape growing and wine making practices in a number of viticultural areas... and it wasn't horn tooting in any way, shape or form, it was merely in response to Barry's rather button pushing comment: "...but this isn't directly related to the greenhouse gas related global warming stuff (that's a technical term)."
    Not intended to be 'button pushing'....was self-deprecating (i.e. my lack of a better term for 'stuff').

    And I've spent more than my share of time in Beijing and HK (and a couple of others). I don't deny for a second that these cities have impacted to the local climate. Just saying that not all of the micro-climate effects are directly related to global warming (though some aspects of production in those cities clearly are likely to be related to GW).

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by timmyc View Post
    "Toot toot!". Is that the sound of someone blowing their own horn? Settle down with the ego, it doesn't add anything to the discussion (and as an aside, I'm not sure where biochemistry & microbiology fit into the science of climate change?)
    My thesis was on the effects of microclimates and climate change on grape growing and wine making practices in a number of viticultural areas... and it wasn't meant as horn tooting in any way merely in response to my misinterpretation of Barry's comment: "...but this isn't directly related to the greenhouse gas related global warming stuff (that's a technical term)." Apologies for this misunderstanding have been given.
    Last edited by Vinitasse; 28 January 2013, 10:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • timmyc
    replied
    Originally posted by Vinitasse View Post
    (and, as for technical terms... with a background in biochem and micro biology I could choke you with 'technical terms' yet since this isn't a scientific journal I thought I might just keep the conversation a bit more approachable)
    "Toot toot!". Is that the sound of someone blowing their own horn? Settle down with the ego, it doesn't add anything to the discussion (and as an aside, I'm not sure where biochemistry & microbiology fit into the science of climate change?)

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry O'Speedwagon View Post
    You could similarly have said 'compare the temperature 1 metre from a bonfire, to the temperature 100 metres from it'.
    I guess one of the concerns overpopulation brings to mind is that this manmade bonfire is becoming larger and larger and we may soon find that we are no longer able to step 100 metres away from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry O'Speedwagon View Post
    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).
    Visit megacities like Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, Mexico City, L.A. et al ad nauseum (that's a Latin term) and tell me they have not already generated their own micro-climates via the spewing forth of various greenhous gases... all of which aids the locking in of those manmade heat sources you have already admitted to (and, as for technical terms... with a background in biochem and micro biology I could choke you with 'technical terms' yet since this isn't a scientific journal I thought I might just keep the conversation a bit more approachable)

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry_Duncan
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry O'Speedwagon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vinitasse
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • flynnaus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dennis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X