Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[James Deuce]

Forgot to respond this...



Could be. I think there's scope for much more change at much less cost than you think, but, hey, what do I know?

Don't ever lose sight of the fact less cost is a disincentive for the people who can change things. This is at the core of the ETS.

If it isn't making obscene amounts of money for someone it isn't happening. Contrary to popular belief individuals do not have the power to change anything vis-a-vis climate because it isn't in the interest of local and national governments, and multi-national corporations to do so.

The change the HAS to happen is philosophical and cultural, not physical or financial.

[MisterD]

It's a conspiracy!

[vtec]

I don't want to spin this debate/discussion out forever (and you don't get points on Kiwibiker for having the last word) but ... the observation that CO2 lags temperature in the past (by 800 years, plus or minus):

suggests that temperature affects CO2 but doesn't show that CO2 doesn't affect temperature
doesn't imply that the recent rise in CO2 is natural


First point, it is some evidence towards CO2 not affecting temperature, because by the GHG CO2 devil theory, there's no way the planet should have been able to cool while CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing, and yet throughout history it does. This is however as you have pointed out not proof, just evidence.

Second point, wouldn't matter if CO2 is proven to largely not affect temperature. Just to throw some fear in the opposite direction, some people are concerned about the next ice age, and I have read proposals to increase Greenhouse gases to prevent much more horrific event (although not seen as an event due to timescale), but unless we master fusion energy there could be a large reduction in the human population, and as far south as New Zealand is would render it largely unusable. http://www.iceagenow.com/

I feel that these changes are all within the earths ability to balance out as has happened for many millions of years. The biosphere of the earth has dealt with things far more impressive than Carbon Dioxide, and has dealt with much higher levels of CO2 many times in the past.

This article about the icebergs approaching NZ makes me laugh.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Hundreds_of_icebergs_drifting_toward_New_Zealand.h tm
I also thought it strange, that icebergs reaching NZ when they usually melt long before can be pointed at by the media as more signs of AGW. But then if you say climate change instead, then that fits better, covers you for both cold and hot events, you can't lose. It's like flipping a coin with heads on both sides and saying heads every time.

[Jantar]

....I also thought it strange, that icebergs reaching NZ when they usually melt long before can be pointed at by the media as more signs of AGW.
Not strange at all. Just change the name of Global Warming to Climate Change. Then when its heating up, thats global warming, and when its cooling down thats climate change. The record cold temperatures recorded in many parts of the world over the last 6 months are proof of Climate Change, and because the warmers have defined climate change as being the same as global warming then the colder it gets the more warming there must be. :shutup:

[nudedaytona]

Hmmm, you my dear friend are one of the religious zealots of AGW. Belief and faith belong only in religion. In science fact is much harder to facilitate and I'm afraid that it does actually include a component of debate. In your own argument you bring up the world is flat, people were executed for providing evidence against a flat earth because of similar zealotry.

Just because the media has been pushing AGW, (now changed to climate change) doesn't mean it's true. I'm still waiting for conclusive evidence. I've done a lot of research. There's evidence for and against, a fair portion of both tarnished with an agenda and a statistical goal similar to that which ACC have provided to forge their case against motorcyclists.

Science is imperfect, and I am not against debate about the details of climate change. My point is that the climate change deniers try and grab every scrap of material to push an agenda that climate change is not happening or is not man made. The stolen emails is a case in point. If the deniers had any real evidence - i.e. peer reiviewed, credible publications - against Anthropogenic Global Warming they would be trumpeting that, not some stolen emails which prove nothing. The deniers always want "more proof" so they can sit on their backside instead of contributing.

I admit that I was guilty of the attitude that climate change wasn't a big deal or not something I needed to worry about. But now that my girlfriend is pregnant I have to start thinking about the future for our son or daughter.

I think we won't know everything about climate change for some time. But that doesn't mean it's not happening. For instance, we don't know everything about cancer. But people die of cancer every day. We don't know completely why Rossi is so good. But Rossi wins. So at some point us non-scientists have to make up our minds and decide whether you want to do something about it. And, as far as I can tell, the sooner we act the less costly it will be for all of us.

[vtec]

My responses in red below.


Science is imperfect, and I am not against debate about the details of climate change. My point is that the climate change deniers try and grab every scrap of material to push an agenda that climate change is not happening or is not man made. The stolen emails is a case in point. If the deniers had any real evidence - i.e. peer reiviewed, credible publications - against Anthropogenic Global Warming they would be trumpeting that, not some stolen emails which prove nothing. The deniers always want "more proof" so they can sit on their backside instead of contributing. [Firstly, an agenda is usually a hidden or different goal than they want people to believe, you haven't highlighted any agenda at all. We don't want more proof, we want enough evidence that we can call it proof beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence I have seen seems about 50-50 at the moment which means nothing. How do you know that the emails prove nothing, or have you dismissed them without further investigation because of your preheld faith/belief.]

I admit that I was guilty of the attitude that climate change wasn't a big deal or not something I needed to worry about. But now that my girlfriend is pregnant I have to start thinking about the future for our son or daughter.
[Don't let that woman cloud your judgement with fear, you're not approaching the science with a sound mind when you let feelings and fears get in the way. I think it's strange that you might think that I care nought about the future of the earth, this seems to be something that AGW believers seem to insinuate quite regularly.]

I think we won't know everything about climate change for some time. But that doesn't mean it's not happening. For instance, we don't know everything about cancer. But people die of cancer every day. We don't know completely why Rossi is so good. But Rossi wins. So at some point us non-scientists have to make up our minds and decide whether you want to do something about it. And, as far as I can tell, the sooner we act the less costly it will be for all of us.
[A big difference between Rossi and AGW is that there is proof that Rossi is or at least has been the best motorcycle racer in the world, until we know more about climate change, we won't know where the climate is going to get, hotter or colder, or if it is affected much by anthropological sources, and even then taking aggressive/evasive action is "a bad idea"TM in my opinion.]

I've talked to many people about AGW, including one Greenpeace worker that I sat next to on the plane back from Buenos Aires, he didn't even know that the claim for AGW was surrounding Carbon Dioxide. More education needs to be done, people need to understand the details more.

On another note, I was talking to another greeny (mid 20's male) who seemed that think that everytime we flushed the toilet or used the shower, the water blinked out of existence and was thus wasted and the world was going to run out of water. Holy shit, had trouble controlling my spasms of laughter when I worked out what he was suggesting. I then went on to explain how the water recycles itself and it's all going to be okay, he probably slept easier that night. I would have been so scared if I thought all the water was going to disappear.

[MisterD]

i.e. peer reiviewed,

What, "you review my work, I'll review yours and we'll hound anyone that disagrees with us out of the field"? That kind of thing?

You only have to look at what happened to David Bellamy for daring to say he thought there were more pressing, proven, environmental problems than CO2...but hey, they didn't come with the lovely financial wins for speculators and power-grabs for the socialists that infest the UN.

[Badjelly]

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.


Removed and sent as PM to the Science Bully hiding behind his Science

Damn! I've been thinking up that vampire line for days! It took a while before I could work it in. I suspect Quasi doesn't feel quite as bullied by it as you might think.

When I lived in America in the 1980s there was a marvellous 10-minute radio program called "Ask Dr Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Science)". A question would be posed and Dr Science would give some bullshit answer. The byline was "Remember, he knows more than you do." Somehow I'm reminded of this. I can't think why. :innocent:

[Badjelly]

Having been accused of being a science bully for (I think) ignoring most of what other people say I'm going to do it again by ignoring the rest of what you wrote in your post (for the time being anyway) and responding to this...


First point, it is some evidence towards CO2 not affecting temperature, because by the GHG CO2 devil theory...


Stop right there. There is no theory that says CO2 is the only climate forcing. None. None.

[Badjelly]

You only have to look at what happened to David Bellamy for daring to say he thought there were more pressing, proven, environmental problems than CO2...but hey, they didn't come with the lovely financial wins for speculators and power-grabs for the socialists that infest the UN.

I believe there are some timeline discrepancies (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/the_australians_war_on_science_25.php) in Dr Bellamy's complaints of persecution.

And, by the way, I don't think he every got around to acknowledging his trouble with the shift key (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists).

[vtec]

Having been accused of being a science bully for (I think) ignoring most of what other people say I'm going to do it again by ignoring the rest of what you wrote in your post (for the time being anyway) and responding to this...




Stop right there. There is no theory that says CO2 is the only climate forcing. None. None.

Well Carbon Dioxide is the main focus of the emissions trading scheme, and all the media attention, and I assume that's because Carbon Dioxide is the devil behind AGW? So no need to "stop right there".

I'll take you not addressing the rest of my post as an agreement.

[James Deuce]

Stop right there. There is no theory that says CO2 is the only climate forcing. None. None.

You're ignoring the science media consensus that the general public are too thick to understand any other theory. Combined with the media storm on Carbon Trading which is going to cost every person in "Western Civilisation" a lot of money each so that polluters can keep polluting and you'll see where the confusion comes from.

If you want people to think something is bad, fine them for it.

[SPman]

........

The change the HAS to happen is philosophical and cultural, not physical or financial.

And that's it, in a trimmed out quote........


until we know more about climate change, we won't know where the climate is going to get, hotter or colder,
If the methane clathrates start to go, I think we can bet on hotter.....much hotter.

[Badjelly]

Well Carbon Dioxide is the main focus of the emissions trading scheme, and all the media attention, and I assume that's because Carbon Dioxide is the devil behind AGW? So no need to "stop right there".

Yes, CO2 is largely "the devil" (your word) behind the current concern with AGW, because its a significant greenhouse gas and it's long-lived. But it's not the only factor affecting climate and no-one has ever (to my knowledge) suggested it was.

Over the last few hundred thousand years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) (probably the last 2 million) the Earth's climate variation has been dominated by big swings between glacial and interglacial conditions. This has involved forcing from changes in the Earth's orbit, greenhouse gases, dust and ice. The orbital changes seem to have set the timing and the others have been feedbacks.

This is a bit different from the current situation where we are putting geophysically significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.


I'll take you not addressing the rest of my post as an agreement.

Not a safe assumption. I just hadn't got around to reading it.

[Quasievil]

Thank god for tag team global warming debating.........:woohoo:

[Swoop]

It's like flipping a coin with heads on both sides and saying heads every time.
Close...
More like having $$'s on each side of the coin. Some cocksucker is making bazillions from the public, from all of this.


Yet the planet could not care less.

[mashman]

Ok, so if CO2 is such a bastard, why are we cutting down all the trees? Wouldn't you think a CO2 - O2 absorbing organism would be given "protection" by the powers that be? If CO2 is such a bad thing, plant more fuckin trees... not problem solved, but surely a start?

[Badjelly]

Thank god for tag team global warming debating.........:woohoo:

Great image! Sweaty bodies jumping in and out of the ring. Blood, snarling. I bags be Gorgeous George.

The best bit is when I break a chair over your head.

[Badjelly]

Thank god for tag team global warming debating.........:woohoo:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2fgn3xZDtkI/Sw7IojNlhkI/AAAAAAAACr8/NYeGW5rXFkE/s1600/Page2FlatFINAL%28small%29.jpg

[Ducface]

do we still have to worry about the ozone hole cause those icebergs are getting really close :shutup:

[Winston001]

Ok, so if CO2 is such a bastard, why are we cutting down all the trees? Wouldn't you think a CO2 - O2 absorbing organism would be given "protection" by the powers that be? If CO2 is such a bad thing, plant more fuckin trees... not problem solved, but surely a start?

Good man!! :yes: Someone who sees the other side of carbon trading.

There isn't a vast bank somewhere owned by evil greedy traders for money from the sale of carbon credits. The money goes to people who take carbon out of the atmosphere............like forestry!

So yes, if you want to make $ plant some trees. That's what the whole deal with Iwi is about.

Another example is Christchurch City Council. A few years ago they developed a way of capturing and using methane from their landfill (or sewage ponds). That resulted in carbon tonnage allocated to CCC which the Council then sold to a Dutch industry in Holland. Money in for the ratepayers and a useable product from waste.

[James Deuce]

And the Dutch industry continued polluting at the same or incrementally increasing rates.

[Jantar]

...Another example is Christchurch City Council. A few years ago they developed a way of capturing and using methane from their landfill (or sewage ponds). That resulted in carbon tonnage allocated to CCC which the Council then sold to a Dutch industry in Holland. Money in for the ratepayers and a useable product from waste.
Yes, I have never understood the logic here, so maybe you can explain it to me. They capture the methane and burn it to produce electricity and in the process they discharge CO2. So how does that result in a carbon credit?

I plant 200 walnut trees and 30 assorted other trees on 3 acres , but don't qualify for any carbon credits, because the trees are decidious.

I would love to hear an explanation of why a corporate body like a council gets carbon credits for discharging carbon into the atmosphere, but a private citizen who plants trees doesn't qualify.

[Quasievil]

There isn't a vast bank somewhere owned by evil greedy traders for money from the sale of carbon credits.

Youre shitting me right, yes there is, there is a whole industry built around it skimming the cash

[James Deuce]

Youre shitting me right, yes there is, there is a whole industry built around it skimming the cash
Indeed. The Copenhagen meeting is about setting up an organisation to deal with the cash.

[peasea]

Indeed. The Copenhagen meeting is about setting up an organisation to deal with the cash.

Maybe I could forward them my account details?

[James Deuce]

Mine too please.

[rainman]

1/ the day you can tell me how it is that increasing the taxes the Mum and Dads pay under this ETS scam is going to save the planet is the day I will convert.........this is my main issue with it.

This ETS scam won't save the planet.


2/ The Day you can tell me how it is that Taxes like this can become legislated while the science is NOT proven will again have me converted

I'd suggest the science won't ever be proven to your satisfaction. But taxes don't need scientific justification anyway.


3/ If in ten or even 20 years time you can tell me that the Climate change (which is natural) has been rectified due to this ETS scam and Taxes is the day I will buy you a new Ducati:shit:

This ETS scam won't rectify climate change, natural or not. That was easy!

Bold claim there that climate change is natural - I assume you mean it's all natural, and that human activities have no influence on the climate at all (so we'd in in essentially the same position even if all humans had been spirited off the earth say 500 years ago, no consequences for burning all of that fossil carbon at all). Feel free to back that up if you wish.

[James Deuce]

Gaahh. Human activities are natural.

[Grahameeboy]

It's the sun that causes climate change..not our emmisions....it's about decreased sun spots which they reckon will start cooling earth by 2012-2015....

Do we really believe that what we have created is greater than the influence of the Sun

[rainman]

Gaahh. Human activities are natural.

Semantics. Do I really need to define what I'm sure you understand me to mean?

[James Deuce]

No, because an organism going about its business is natural. Local ecosystems crumble in the face of imbalance, why shouldn't the global one hiccough as a result?

It's the desire to paint humans as "the bad guys" that is going to make life really miserable for a lot of people who simply don't deserve it. We need to adapt to change, not resist it, and we need to do it in ways that improve the existence of the bulk of the world's population.

The present fixation on sequestering money under the auspices of "saving the planet", supposedly for "third world" countries to fix their ongoing ecological issues, is just going to create a vast pool of virtual money that will allow the worst polluters to keep polluting, but even that's still within the scope of an organism going about its business.

Darwin's paraphrasing of Spencer is always misrepresented as the strong eating the weak for gain. His interpretation was more along the lines of the organism best adapted for its local environment finds survival easier than its competitors. The last 300 years have seen "local" come to mean "global" and the best adapted are those with the most money. Global war has been rendered futile by the swirling and violent vortex of global economics. A country with greater foresight than just the next electoral cycle can render an opponent encumbered with democracy impotent over time by nicking all their money. China was never going to be stupid enough to challenge the US militarily, but look at what's happened. The US is struggling for manpower and money to persecute a war that they will lose, in place that has consistently sucked the wealth out of countries and empires who have attempted control the territory.

China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.

[rainman]

Do we really believe that what we have created is greater than the influence of the Sun

That's very curious logic.

Imagine 1 sq m of desert on a sunny day. Death Valley for example. Plenty hot. Pretty impressive work on the part of Ra, they might have said a while back. But we know it's because of the awesome power of the sun, even if it is all that way away. Wow, big powerful fusion-reacting sun!

Now detonate a nuke a few hundred metres above that square. The nuke is very powerful, but not as powerful as the sun, not even close. We can't even imagine creating anything nearly as influential as the sun.

Still sucks to be in the desert that day, if you happen to be within the blast radius.

[rainman]

No, because an organism going about its business is natural.

Language (English in particular) is a confusing and approximate tool. Yes, an organism going about it's business is natural, at least at the extreme range of meanings given to that word. But "natural" often associates with "good" in many minds (cf. natural remedies vs synth chem treatments), so your point sounds a lot "it's all good, no need to change". Which, I'd suggest, would be an irresponsible and unproductive stance.

A better example: modern chemical monocultural agriculture can't in the historical sense be considered "natural", whereas something like permaculture is a lot more so. A world where permaculture was the dominant food production system would be quite different to the present one - and would have pluses and minuses to debate. By your definition above, both are perfectly natural, nothing to see, move along.

No broad disagreement with the rest of your post.


China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Grahameeboy]

That's very curious logic.

Imagine 1 sq m of desert on a sunny day. Death Valley for example. Plenty hot. Pretty impressive work on the part of Ra, they might have said a while back. But we know it's because of the awesome power of the sun, even if it is all that way away. Wow, big powerful fusion-reacting sun!

Now detonate a nuke a few hundred metres above that square. The nuke is very powerful, but not as powerful as the sun, not even close. We can't even imagine creating anything nearly as influential as the sun.

Still sucks to be in the desert that day, if you happen to be within the blast radius.

You know my logic......:innocent:

[Winston001]

Yes, I have never understood the logic here, so maybe you can explain it to me. They capture the methane and burn it to produce electricity and in the process they discharge CO2. So how does that result in a carbon credit?

The methane is captured from the Burwood landfill and burned to heat the QEII complex including the extensive pool.

Methane is a significant greenhouse gas - 20 times more serious than CO2. Most landfills just vent methane to the atmosphere. This system saves a huge amount - about the equivalent of 200 households worth of electricity. Plus the Council - to my surprise - gets annual payments of about $1 million/year.

Also - my bad - the carbon credits were bought by a British company.


I plant 200 walnut trees and 30 assorted other trees on 3 acres , but don't qualify for any carbon credits, because the trees are decidious.

I would love to hear an explanation of why a corporate body like a council gets carbon credits for discharging carbon into the atmosphere, but a private citizen who plants trees doesn't qualify.

Frankly I'm with you. Can't see why you shouldn't qualify.

As for the council, it is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, saving money, and using an existing resource all of which is a good result. We need to remind ourselves that CO2 is simply one greenhouse gas and other gases are also controlled.

[Winston001]

No, because an organism going about its business is natural. Local ecosystems crumble in the face of imbalance, why shouldn't the global one hiccough as a result?

It's the desire to paint humans as "the bad guys" that is going to make life really miserable for a lot of people who simply don't deserve it. We need to adapt to change, not resist it, and we need to do it in ways that improve the existence of the bulk of the world's population.

The present fixation on sequestering money under the auspices of "saving the planet", supposedly for "third world" countries to fix their ongoing ecological issues, is just going to create a vast pool of virtual money that will allow the worst polluters to keep polluting, but even that's still within the scope of an organism going about its business.

Darwin's paraphrasing of Spencer is always misrepresented as the strong eating the weak for gain. His interpretation was more along the lines of the organism best adapted for its local environment finds survival easier than its competitors. The last 300 years have seen "local" come to mean "global" and the best adapted are those with the most money. Global war has been rendered futile by the swirling and violent vortex of global economics. A country with greater foresight than just the next electoral cycle can render an opponent encumbered with democracy impotent over time by nicking all their money. China was never going to be stupid enough to challenge the US militarily, but look at what's happened. The US is struggling for manpower and money to persecute a war that they will lose, in place that has consistently sucked the wealth out of countries and empires who have attempted control the territory.

China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.

Good post Jim.

Time for me to bang on about my pet hobby-horse methinks.

IMHO the most serious issues facing mankind are:

1. Rampant population growth = disease, famine, war. 6.5 billion human beings is way way beyond a sustainable population for the planet.

2. Poisoning of the soil and water leading to a cascade failure of microrganisms. In other words, a collapse of the biosphere. The historical metaphor is Mesopotamia and Easter Island etc.

Climate change comes a mild third place by comparison.

[rainman]

IMHO the most serious issues facing mankind are:

1. Rampant population growth...

2. Poisoning of the soil and water...

Climate change comes a mild third place by comparison.

Wot, no resource (notably oil) depletion? :gob:

[Winston001]

Wot, no resource (notably oil) depletion? :gob:

Oh yeah, goes without sayin, do'n it.

I think we'll have critically harmed the bio-organisms before we run out of oil. Which of course being made of complex hydrocarbons plays a large part in the poisoning.



Actually I don't worry about oil. Tend to believe newer technologies will supplant carbon energy sources - such as fusion. The trick will be to capture the electrons and use them without heavy metals. I notice there has been an experiment sending solar energy over a long distance by microwave. The next step is a satellite sending concentrated solar to Earth.

FYI Jerry Pournelle wrote of these technologies 25 years ago.

[mashman]

Theory, Please discuss, flame, maim etc...: Methane is trapped naturally in the Earths crust right? Why do we drill into the Earth's crust? and what else, other than what we're looking for, comes up at the same time?

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2005-08/drnl-tsf082205.php

[Badjelly]

Theory, Please discuss, flame, maim etc...: Methane is trapped naturally in the Earths crust right? Why do we drill into the Earth's crust? and what else, other than what we're looking for, comes up at the same time?

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2005-08/drnl-tsf082205.php

Methane is trapped naturally in the Earth's crust. It's called natural gas. Quite a lot of it doesn't get burned, I believe, but gets vented to atmosphere. Reducing this loss would be a good thing all round.

The article is about methane in the Earth's mantle, which is too far down to drill. (Someone tried once. They didn't get there.)

[avgas]

China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.
Not likely.....Obviously know nothing about china and what its like there.

Put things in perspective.

NZ : New coal furnace every 10 or so years
USA/Europe: Every 2 years
Shanghai (on its own): 3 months
....China as a whole - 22 days.

I will believe the whole : China going green and ripping us off thing, when I can SEE the sky in a Shanghai Winter.

[mashman]

Methane is trapped naturally in the Earth's crust. It's called natural gas. Quite a lot of it doesn't get burned, I believe, but gets vented to atmosphere. Reducing this loss would be a good thing all round.

The article is about methane in the Earth's mantle, which is too far down to drill. (Someone tried once. They didn't get there.)

I've had a theory for a while now, and i've always been "flamed" for it...

Global Warming, maybe it's not "all" about the atmosphere. It's not an oil bashing theory, well not much really, but you have to wonder: The core of the Earth is pretty fuckin hot right! Oil, methane and plenty of other solids, liquids and gases generally hold up to heating quite well, i mean they keep their state "relatively" unchanged given the pressure they are under (HUUUUUGE ASSUMPTION).

Consider if you will the following: We remove oil and various other minerals from below our feet, sometimes drilling for thousands of meters. Would it be logical to assume that oil/minerals are acting as a thermal blanket between ourselves and the Earth's core, and therefore would it be logical to assume that some of the "escaped" gases now in our atmosphere are being heated by the sun and hence heating up our atmosphere? I honestly can't see why this isn't plausible, BUT...

[Badjelly]

Would it be logical to assume that oil/minerals are acting as a thermal blanket between ourselves and the Earth's core,

Rocks do the insulation thing pretty well on their own. There is flux of geothermal heat from the rocks (the lithosphere) to the atmosphere and ocean, but it's pretty small bikkies compared to the flux from the sun. However a Google search on "geothermal heat flux" just found this

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036078.shtml

which suggests geothermal heating of the abyssal ocean does affect the circulation.

But I think the effect of removing gas and oil on the geothermal heat flux will be really tiny.



and therefore would it be logical to assume that some of the "escaped" gases now in our atmosphere are being heated by the sun and hence heating up our atmosphere? I honestly can't see why this isn't plausible, BUT...

The methane we're releasing into the atmosphere from natural gas is causing some warming via the greenhouse effect (according to the greenie leftie alarmist scientists who are promulgating the global warming hoax :msn-wink:). If you want an estimate of how significant this is, you can probably find it in the IPCC report.

[James Deuce]

Not likely.....Obviously know nothing about china and what its like there.

Put things in perspective.

NZ : New coal furnace every 10 or so years
USA/Europe: Every 2 years
Shanghai (on its own): 3 months
....China as a whole - 22 days.

I will believe the whole : China going green and ripping us off thing, when I can SEE the sky in a Shanghai Winter.

That has to be the most outrageous misinterpretation of anything I've ever written.

I didn't suggest for a minute that China would "go Green". SImply that they now own the US and the the ETS gives them an opportunity to extort more money out of the "West's" financial systems. The pollutters will continue to pollute at growing rates (China amongst them) while the rich get richer and the bourgeoisie of the world pay for it with cash and falling living standards.

[mashman]

Rocks do the insulation thing pretty well on their own. There is flux of geothermal heat from the rocks (the lithosphere) to the atmosphere and ocean, but it's pretty small bikkies compared to the flux from the sun. However a Google search on "geothermal heat flux" just found this

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036078.shtml

which suggests geothermal heating of the abyssal ocean does affect the circulation.

But I think the effect of removing gas and oil on the geothermal heat flux will be really tiny.



PAH!!! and they wonder why there's chunks of ice floating around where there weren't any (theoretically)...

Ya see BJ, you're thinking again, that's dangerous, the government will find you and remove your brain cell! :bash: :laugh:



The methane we're releasing into the atmosphere from natural gas is causing some warming via the greenhouse effect (according to the greenie leftie alarmist scientists who are promulgating the global warming hoax :msn-wink:). If you want an estimate of how significant this is, you can probably find it in the IPCC report.

I hate that written techno babble, to be honest it just sends me to sleep...
I love leftie alarmists (ha ha ha) (currently i'm a fence sitter), they ask questions, they don't just take what's being said as "law"... and to be honest if a few more scientists had done that we may not have the great global warming rock n roll swindle theory to sidetrack the debate...

Either way, i can't believe that they haven't stopped what they're doing... agreed that the instrumentation that they have is now good enough to capture the information they require, and just start over again.

As stupid as it sounds, what the hell else can you do! What do scientists usually do in these scenarios (other than burying their heads in the sand and hoping that noone notices hee hee).

[Badjelly]

PAH!!! and they wonder why there's chunks of ice floating around where there weren't any (theoretically)......What do scientists usually do in these scenarios (other than burying their heads in the sand and hoping that noone notices hee hee).

What are you smoking, man?

[mashman]

What are you smoking, man?

I guess not as much as you ;)... So the Atlantic Conveyer wouldn't carry the geothermal heat?

[Badjelly]

So the Atlantic Conveyer wouldn't carry the geothermal heat?

Yes, in a thousand odd years. It's still a small amount of heat compared with the sun. It has an effect in the deep ocean (according to the paper I cited) only because the water isn't going anywhere very fast.

[mashman]

Yes, in a thousand odd years. It's still a small amount of heat compared with the sun. It has an effect in the deep ocean (according to the paper I cited) only because the water isn't going anywhere very fast.

So it could be a combination of everything that we're doing, everything being the limit of what one can imagine? Can i have my money back please :crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:

[Badjelly]

So it could be a combination of everything that we're doing, everything being the limit of what one can imagine? Can i have my money back please :crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:

What I was actually saying is that your idea that drilling for oil has removed the layer insulating the surface from geothermal heat and thereby warmed the Earth is a complete non-starter.

[mashman]

What I was actually saying is that your idea that drilling for oil has removed the layer insulating the surface from geothermal heat and thereby warmed the Earth is a complete non-starter.

I didn't say "the layer", however i did mean "a layer". Given that oil comes out of the ground already hotter than the boiling point of water, i would have thought that it would have been more than plausible. I guess that's something i'll just have to file in the unsolved pile (even if you did say "Yes, in a thousand odd years")... every little helps eh :whistle:

[avgas]

That has to be the most outrageous misinterpretation of anything I've ever written.

I didn't suggest for a minute that China would "go Green". SImply that they now own the US and the the ETS gives them an opportunity to extort more money out of the "West's" financial systems. The pollutters will continue to pollute at growing rates (China amongst them) while the rich get richer and the bourgeoisie of the world pay for it with cash and falling living standards.
Errr how?
To do so China - with an increasing demand (not population), would have to decrease its emission's to do so. We are not talking about a country like the US where everyone had everything and now they have to cut back. China is the opposite.
A population of billions suddenly has found itself with money to buy stuff it wants. A previously completely communist share-it-around country, now has the ability for its individuals to consume what they want. They are only just starting now to build a momentum of consumerism.

And yet to get a carbon credit (and suck the money out as you claim) they would have to break this trend of billions of people. I'm sorry but HOW?

See the key think about an ETS would be the E. If you keep emmitting the same (or in china's case MORE) how can you gain from an ETS.
I would claim countries like Sweeden and Norway stand more chance of claiming ETS credits that China. If its lucky China might cut even

[R6_kid]

I think this song sums it up:

Convenient that it's being sung at a concert to raise money for hurricane survivors in 2005!

88EOY70fnhM

[Swoop]

The pollutters will continue to pollute at growing rates (China amongst them) while the rich get richer and the bourgeoisie of the world pay for it with cash and falling living standards.
China will go from strength to strength here. The scarier part is where this is taking the still communist regime and its military goals.
An entirely different topic, but extremely well funded... by nations that are now supplying them with vast amounts of money.

[James Deuce]

Errr how?
To do so China - with an increasing demand (not population), would have to decrease its emission's to do so. We are not talking about a country like the US where everyone had everything and now they have to cut back. China is the opposite.
A population of billions suddenly has found itself with money to buy stuff it wants. A previously completely communist share-it-around country, now has the ability for its individuals to consume what they want. They are only just starting now to build a momentum of consumerism.

And yet to get a carbon credit (and suck the money out as you claim) they would have to break this trend of billions of people. I'm sorry but HOW?

See the key think about an ETS would be the E. If you keep emmitting the same (or in china's case MORE) how can you gain from an ETS.
I would claim countries like Sweeden and Norway stand more chance of claiming ETS credits that China. If its lucky China might cut even

Nope, you've still missed it. You're not even arguing the same point, and you've misinterpreted my post completely. China will one of the beneficiaries of the ETS, not a carbon trader.

[Skyryder]

What I was actually saying is that your idea that drilling for oil has removed the layer insulating the surface from geothermal heat and thereby warmed the Earth is a complete non-starter.

Here's one for ya. I know a guy who claims the earth is cooling on the basis that the hot pools up on Welcome flat are now one degree cooler.

The fact that this was casued by the earthquack down in fiordland just a few month back seems not to have been noticed. :bash:


Skyryder

[Winston001]

Nope, you've still missed it. You're not even arguing the same point, and you've misinterpreted my post completely. China will one of the beneficiaries of the ETS, not a carbon trader.

I'm guessing you mean the $10 billion fund to be set up by Western countries to help third world nations move to cleaner technologies.

Probably the hardest issue to accept about governments moving to reduce green-house gases is that China and India get a free pass. So it's true that you and I will pay while some other nations continue to pollute.

It ain't logical - but it makes a kind of sense. Chinese and Indian people want cars and flatscreen TVs too and why shouldn't they? We've had 150 years of fun pouring pollution into the air and water, they want a chance to catch up. Hard to deny them that chance.

[Mikkel]

I think this song sums it up:

Convenient that it's being sung at a concert to raise money for hurricane survivors in 2005!

88EOY70fnhM

Are you a complete tosser - or do you just come across that way?

If anything has failed the planet it is human nature...


Making two possibilities a reality
predicting the future of things we all know
fighting off the diseased programming
of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries
Science fails to recognise the single most
potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
science has failed our mother earth
Science fails to recognise the single most
potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
science has failed our mother earth
Spirit-must rule all things
Spirit-must rule all things
Spirit-must rule all things
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
Science has failed our mother earth
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things {{{{{{{{spirit must rule all things!!!
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Science has failed our mother earth