Climate change or global warming and who did it? [Archive] - Page 2

oneofsix

14th June 2011, 18:45

So far as I know geologic age is well understood. The methods used are the decay rates of isotopes (carbon, potassium, radium) and the concentration of elements found in meteorites. The Earth can't be older than the Sun or the meteorites so their composition is a sound base to work from.

Happy to be corrected though.

Not arguing with you but to add a little information, that method of dating is based on the assumption that the levels of these isotopes have remained relatively constant and the rate of decay has always been the same. As for the rate of decay I have no reason to doubt that has been relatively constant, others differ, there may have been factors that ripped electrons from atoms and thereby altered the rate of decay. Given the theories on how the rocks and gases came together to form the earth and elements I could easily conceive the numbers of isotopes varying. I therefore understand Edbear's comment.

Winston001

14th June 2011, 21:14

Not arguing with you but to add a little information, that method of dating is based on the assumption that the levels of these isotopes have remained relatively constant and the rate of decay has always been the same. As for the rate of decay I have no reason to doubt that has been relatively constant, others differ, there may have been factors that ripped electrons from atoms and thereby altered the rate of decay. Given the theories on how the rocks and gases came together to form the earth and elements I could easily conceive the numbers of isotopes varying. I therefore understand Edbear's comment.

No problem. Just for the fun of it and to show we are still learning stuff, recent research suggests radioactive decay changes with temperature. Some isoptopes speed up and others slow down. Who knew??

That shouldn't happen because the bond is through the weak nuclear force which isn't affected by temperature.

Another theory is that the Sun emits an unknown particle which affects the rate of decay. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

So there is plenty of room for existing theories to be varied but as we've discussed before, scientific research refines our knowledge, it doesn't destroy it. Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein.

carbonhed

15th June 2011, 07:11

oneofsix

15th June 2011, 07:27

No problem. Just for the fun of it and to show we are still learning stuff, recent research suggests radioactive decay changes with temperature. Some isoptopes speed up and others slow down. Who knew??

That shouldn't happen because the bond is through the weak nuclear force which isn't affected by temperature.

Another theory is that the Sun emits an unknown particle which affects the rate of decay. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

So there is plenty of room for existing theories to be varied but as we've discussed before, scientific research refines our knowledge, it doesn't destroy it. Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein.

just for the sake of pickiness and because this is KB; that last sentence holds some interesting thoughts. "scientific research refines our knowledge", yes it does and always has even before it was called science. Alchemists and astrologist used to be scientists until their own science surpassed the 'mystical' parts of their crafts and split off into chemistry and astronomy.
"Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein" same politics still confuse and muddy the picture. There was a brief period for a while around Einstein and for a little while after where science was allowed to be a god in its own right but now business and politics are back to hi-jacking it for their own purpose so the public only get the spin.

Jantar

15th June 2011, 09:06

NighthawkNZ

15th June 2011, 10:03

I already suspected we may see a repeat of a Dalton minimum, but a Maunder? I must get in plenty of firewood.
I better make sure we have enough wood and coal as well... hmmmmm I blame global warming that I may need more firewood than normal

oneofsix

15th June 2011, 10:32

I better make sure we have enough wood and coal as well... hmmmmm I blame global warming that I may need more firewood than normal

So it is back to the ice age theory again? :scratch: Oh that's right there was the theory that we would already be in an ice age if it hadn't been for the industrial revolution :calm:

shrub

17th June 2011, 12:30

Might be time to invest in thermal underwear shares as the suns output is projected to be heading towards a new Maunder minimum...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/#more-41648

Thank fuck for all that extra CO2 :killingme

You denialists would be buggered without wattsupwiththat. He really is your beacon of hope - pity his theories have no basis.

And yes, solar activity is dropping, so why is GMT rising? Let me guess, Al Gore and those evil Greenies have somehow managed to make it warmer using tingle rays from outer space, or worse still they are using their immense powers to hypnotise almost every climate scientist and all the tens of thousands of people who record temperature data so they think that dropping temperatures are actually rising temperatures.

Maybe they should wear lead helmets?

Ocean1

17th June 2011, 12:41

why is GMT rising?

Greenwich mean time is rising? We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Oh, TEMPERATURE. Get up to date man, they didn't change it from global warming to global climate change just for the extra marketing punch of the longer acronym.

shrub

17th June 2011, 12:57

Greenwich mean time is rising? We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Oh, TEMPERATURE. Get up to date man, they didn't change it from global warming to global climate change just for the extra marketing punch of the longer acronym.

the nature of climate change gives the deniers great hope - "hey, Europe just had the coldest winter in a brazillian years, so global warming can't be happening, them greenies must be wrong and I'm much smarter than the scientists".

Pity the rising global mean temperature means climate becomes more volatile in all directions, not just a nice, neat and easy to understand universal rise in temperature. They could get that without the help of blogs to tell them stories they like and can understand, but it's far too complicated to understand without help.

Scuba_Steve

17th June 2011, 13:24

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 13:33

Greenwich mean time is rising? We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Oh, TEMPERATURE. Get up to date man, they didn't change it from global warming to global climate change just for the extra marketing punch of the longer acronym.

You are so right. They changed it when the neigh-sayers scored by pointing out that some places and winters were getting colder, talking global warming whilst people were freezing their butts of was an epic fail.

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 13:40

You denialists would be buggered without wattsupwiththat. He really is your beacon of hope - pity his theories have no basis.

And yes, solar activity is dropping, so why is GMT rising? Let me guess, Al Gore and those evil Greenies have somehow managed to make it warmer using tingle rays from outer space, or worse still they are using their immense powers to hypnotise almost every climate scientist and all the tens of thousands of people who record temperature data so they think that dropping temperatures are actually rising temperatures.

Maybe they should wear lead helmets?

Wouldn't be some sort of temperature inertia? For the same amount of sun it is much warmer in the evening than the morning. The same air temperature feels warmer in summer than winter because of the effect of ground temperature. Nah sorry forgot in the simplest world we live in as soon as you turn the heat off the temperature must drop instantly so it must be dem carbons keeping us warm.

shrub

17th June 2011, 14:54

Right well here's my promise to Shrub & the climagate.

If the world ends in 2012 I will believe you & your climagates propaganda, if it doesn't I'll continue believing the truth. 2012 will decide!!!:banana:

I doubt the world will end in 2012, 2013 or even 2112 so you will continue to believe what you earnestly believe to be true, but I've got one simple question for you: Given the climate is changing and global mean temperature has steadily increased without any identifiable external cause (measurable and commonly observed) and that human activity has released billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (again, measurable and hardly something that can be argued againts), and that the concentration of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere influences the ability of thermal radiation to pass through said atmosphere (measurable and universally agreed on), how do you explain the climate change we are experiencing?

is your "truth" based on scientific and testable theories, or is it simply based on something you fervently believe in?

Jantar

17th June 2011, 15:16

You denialists would be buggered without wattsupwiththat. He really is your beacon of hope - pity his theories have no basis....
It must be scary to be so afraid a man who runs a web site where anyone can post that you would automatically assign all theories to the web site owner, irrespective of where they were published, who published them, or where they are announced. Wattsupwiththat is simply one website where this was announced. I have already posted a link to the source. The American Astronomical Society meeting (we call it a conference) has announced 3 independant lines of peer reviewed research into this, it is not an Anthony Watts theory.

shrub

17th June 2011, 15:20

It must be scary to be so afraid a man who runs a web site where anyone can post that you would automatically assign all theories to the web site owner, irrespective of where they were published, who published them, or where they are announced. Wattsupwiththat is simply one website where this was announced. I have already posted a link to the source. The American Astronomical Society meeting (we call it a conference) has announced 3 independant lines of peer reviewed research into this, it is not an Anthony Watts theory.

Afraid? No, amused, and Anthony Watts will only publish material that supports his arguments. A few months ago I challenged something he put up (very courteousy) and my chalenge was never published, yet a myriad of people agreeing were posted.

george formby

17th June 2011, 15:21

Yup, here it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html

Jantar

17th June 2011, 15:27

Yup, here it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html

An honest article that doesn't play the hype. It doesn't try to scare the population with tales of frozen landscapes, nor does it over emphisise and potential warming. It does rely on the IPCC claims for temperature rise, but so far we finding that even the lower limit of the IPCC range is too high. However the article does make a valid point that one may offset the other. The next decade should give a clearer picture.

Jantar

17th June 2011, 17:58

Try this report for those who don't want to read the scientific papers. http://www.kusi.com/video?clipId=5960003&autostart=true

Scuba_Steve

17th June 2011, 19:10

I doubt the world will end in 2012, 2013 or even 2112 so you will continue to believe what you earnestly believe to be true, but I've got one simple question for you: Given the climate is changing and global mean temperature has steadily increased without any identifiable external cause (measurable and commonly observed) and that human activity has released billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (again, measurable and hardly something that can be argued againts), and that the concentration of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere influences the ability of thermal radiation to pass through said atmosphere (measurable and universally agreed on), how do you explain the climate change we are experiencing?

is your "truth" based on scientific and testable theories, or is it simply based on something you fervently believe in?

my "truth" is based on real scientist's not the theorist's you believe in, and I'll give you a couple of possibilities that could increase temps (not saying they do or don't just putting them out there as better alternatives to the propaganda you believe in)
1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.
2. Electromagnetic radiation. Your cellphone, your TV, your radio, your WiFi, your computer, your microwave. All helping to heat the earth just like the sun does (makes alot more sense than your cows farting don't it!!!:yes:)

mashman

17th June 2011, 19:22

my "truth" is based on real scientist's not the theorist's you believe in, and I'll give you a couple of possibilities that could increase temps (not saying they do or don't just putting them out there as better alternatives to the propaganda you believe in)
1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.
2. Electromagnetic radiation. Your cellphone, your TV, your radio, your WiFi, your computer, your microwave. All helping to heat the earth just like the sun does (makes alot more sense than your cows farting don't it!!!:yes:)

3. Perhaps the Earths core is cooling. Maybe it's heating. Maybe it takes a really really long time for the Earths core to heat and cool in response to the suns activity and we just happen to be here at one of those moments in time... perhaps as the Earth heats and cools the plates swell and contract and we get Earthquakes and other fucked up weather accompanying that swelling... doh, or contracting.

Jantar

17th June 2011, 19:44

....
1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.....
The sun is currently very quiet. Very low sunspot numbers, and the flux is heading down towards that magic 1500 level where the sun can considered in a grand minmum.

superman

18th June 2011, 14:10

Remember that there are around 80 - 100 volcanos active at any one time and generally at least 2 major volcanos erupting at any one time, with more than 100 major eruption per year, hence volcanos do emit more CO2 than do humans.

There are currently 4 major eruptions in progress, but we only hear about one because it disrupts air travel. How about Nabro in Ethiopia, or Kizimen on the Kamchatka Peninsula, or here http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/ just look for yourself. :D

No.

http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html

ellipsis

18th June 2011, 18:24

...i'm still causing lots of excess global warming...now have an old rusty visor fireplace in until further notice...its a relic from someones 70's dream home i acquired and threw under a tree years ago...fuck, does it rip through combustible material...it's just about sucked into its maw in the last week, 38 square meters of flooring, the joists holding said flooring and all the sub frame and piles and dozens of cardboard boxes.....i seem to remember lots of these fires in places way back then...the old hippies and swingers must have burned a few forests to keep those things running for all the years when they were a "hot thing"...if i could find a fondue set up, i'd be right back there..

Scuba_Steve

18th June 2011, 18:44

...if i could find a fondue set up, i'd be right back there..

mmmmm fondue uggghhhh :drool:

shrub

20th June 2011, 09:04

1. Ever heard of the sun??? It's the most powerful heating device we have here on earth & it is more active than it has ever been under our recordings incl the solar flare you may have seen in the news recently.

Yes, the sun is the source of the heat and has a strong influence on climate, and studies covering the past 1150 years have found that temperatures closely match solar activity. Unfortunately a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 while global temperatures have been warming, to the point where over the last 35 years sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. (Lockwood 2008 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract)).

2 . Electromagnetic radiation. Your cellphone, your TV, your radio, your WiFi, your computer, your microwave. All helping to heat the earth just like the sun does (makes alot more sense than your cows farting don't it!!!)

It's been a while since I've heard that one. Yes, electromagentic radiation can influence climate, but the influence of all the cellphones, TVs etc in the world combined is so small it's like saying the reason my bike is slower than a Gixxer 1000 is because the Gixxer has more streamlined indicators. And that's kind of where you and I differ. Have you heard of something called Ockham's razor? Essentially that means you use the most likely explanation for a phenomenon first.

Going back to the bike analogy, last week I was riding along and suddenly the engine lost power quite dramatically. It could have meant my ignition system was shitting itself, or that I had run out of oil and was about to sieze, or even that space aliens were using a ray that killed all engines, or it could have meant I was running out of gas. Sure enough, my trip meter showed 205 km, and because I know that at around 200 km I go onto reserve I reached down and turned the tap. Sure enough seconds later the mighty triple roared back into life and away I went.

There is a most likely cause for the current climate change and every piece of research (checking the odometer, turning the fuel tap) suggests that it's human activity.

Scuba_Steve

20th June 2011, 09:25

Yes, the sun is the source of the heat and has a strong influence on climate, and studies covering the past 1150 years have found that temperatures closely match solar activity. Unfortunately a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 while global temperatures have been warming, to the point where over the last 35 years sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. (Lockwood 2008 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract)).

Sun is getting hotter burning the planet according to Swiss and German scientists
“The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

It's been a while since I've heard that one. Yes, electromagentic radiation can influence climate, but the influence of all the cellphones, TVs etc in the world combined is so small it's like saying the reason my bike is slower than a Gixxer 1000 is because the Gixxer has more streamlined indicators. And that's kind of where you and I differ. Have you heard of something called Ockham's razor? Essentially that means you use the most likely explanation for a phenomenon first.

Going back to the bike analogy, last week I was riding along and suddenly the engine lost power quite dramatically. It could have meant my ignition system was shitting itself, or that I had run out of oil and was about to sieze, or even that space aliens were using a ray that killed all engines, or it could have meant I was running out of gas. Sure enough, my trip meter showed 205 km, and because I know that at around 200 km I go onto reserve I reached down and turned the tap. Sure enough seconds later the mighty triple roared back into life and away I went.

There is a most likely cause for the current climate change and every piece of research (checking the odometer, turning the fuel tap) suggests that it's human activity.

So you still think cows farting (a natural thing) its a more logical cause than us creating a word-wide microwave oven??? :weird:
I think it's only put forth cause it's easily charged $$$ without affecting those due to reap the profits i.e. BP oil, Al Gore, Shell, Rothchilds, Rockefeller etc etc

shrub

20th June 2011, 10:22

Sun is getting hotter burning the planet according to Swiss and German scientists “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

Please, if you're going to quote someone give me a link, but I did a quick check of the Max Planck institute (who are well regarded), and found the following:

1. "If carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continue to increase unchecked, a drastic increase in the global temperature can be expected before the end of this century." Link to the paper here
(http://www.mpg.de/624275/pressRelease20100802?filter_order=LT&research_topic=UK-GF%2CUK-KF)

2. "Despite the trend towards global warming, people in Great Britain and Central Europe will possibly experience cold winters more often in the next few years. This is the findings of a study by scientists from the University of Reading, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire and the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau. The researchers have discovered a link between low solar activity and unusually low winter temperatures in this region. It is possible that, at times of low solar activity, the mild winds from the Atlantic do not reach Europe in winter. These results do not contradict an anthropogenic climate change, which is causing the temperatures on Earth to increase on average." Link to the whole article here (http://www.mpg.de/622202/pressRelease20100420?filter_order=LT&research_topic=UK-GF%2CUK-KF) This paper directly contradicts your claims, so please give me a link.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

Source please because I found the following on the NASA website (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/): "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

So you still think cows farting (a natural thing) its a more logical cause than us creating a word-wide microwave oven???
I think it's only put forth cause it's easily charged $$$ without affecting those due to reap the profits i.e. BP oil, Al Gore, Shell, Rothchilds, Rockefeller etc etc

I have never mentioned cows farting, but yes, ruminants do emit huge emounts of methane - mostly from burping, not farting - and while that is a "natural" source the concentration of cattle is not natural and is unsustainable without artificially accessing water for irrigation. And I wondered how long it would take for you to bring Al Gore into the debate, although I am usure about your rationale behind linking him with Shell, BP and the Rothchilds etc.

Scuba_Steve

20th June 2011, 10:35

Please, if you're going to quote someone give me a link,
here a link for ya (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nasa+sun+is+getting+hotter)
But I pulled that tiny extract from here (http://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/sun-is-getting-hotter-burning-the-planet-according-to-swiss-and-german-scientists/) and here
(http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html)

And I wondered how long it would take for you to bring Al Gore into the debate, although I am usure about your rationale behind linking him with Shell, BP and the Rothchilds etc.

They're all making big $$$ of this religious scam

oneofsix

20th June 2011, 10:39

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

I do so love the quotes like the one above from NASA. "very likely human-induced" to me means this is a guess made based on the current panic about global warming. But now NASA can be quoted as saying that global warming is happening and is human induced.

If you think that the global warming panic induced carbon trading scheme isn't about profit then you are deluding yourself. Al Gore's personal wealth has increased on the back of global warming and funnily enough with all that has been happening around oil, including global warming Shell and BP profits have been raising.

shrub

20th June 2011, 10:43

here a link for ya (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nasa+sun+is+getting+hotter)

Did you look at the date of the article? March 20, 2003, which was more than 8 years ago and since then a huge amount of research has come out on the other side of the ledger.

They're all making big $$$ of this religious scam

Ah, the money making angle. Funny how making money is such a good thing until someone else does it, and as for religion, I can't for the life of me see how religion comes into it. The debate is entirely scientific, and therefore based on reason, research and empirical data, whereas religion is based on faith in a position without requiring any proof. And the fundamentalist religious groups are overwhelmingly in your camp. I think your position probably fits most definitions of religious.

Scuba_Steve

20th June 2011, 10:48

Did you look at the date of the article? March 20, 2003, which was more than 8 years ago and since then a huge amount of research has come out on the other side of the ledger.

The other was 9 Aug 2010

Ah, the money making angle. Funny how making money is such a good thing until someone else does it,
I never said it was good or bad I just said this is why the scam is as it is

and as for religion, I can't for the life of me see how religion comes into it. The debate is entirely scientific, and therefore based on reason, research and empirical data,

:killingme :rofl:

shrub

20th June 2011, 10:48

I do so love the quotes like the one above from NASA. "very likely human-induced" to me means this is a guess made based on the current panic about global warming. But now NASA can be quoted as saying that global warming is happening and is human induced.

If you think that the global warming panic induced carbon trading scheme isn't about profit then you are deluding yourself. Al Gore's personal wealth has increased on the back of global warming and funnily enough with all that has been happening around oil, including global warming Shell and BP profits have been raising.

yes, the money thing again. Let me guess, you're frightened that you'll have to pay more taxes? Struggling to make ends meet? Poor you....

And of course they're going to say "very likely" because that's how scientists roll - even when they know something for sure they kick for touch. They are naturally extremely conservative, and on that note I am wastiing my time arguing with people who are entrenched in their position. There is no evidence in existence that will convince you otherwise, much like the Christian who believes in creation and refuses to even consider the evidence to the contrary.

Goodbye.

oneofsix

20th June 2011, 11:35

yes, the money thing again. Let me guess, you're frightened that you'll have to pay more taxes? Struggling to make ends meet? Poor you....

And of course they're going to say "very likely" because that's how scientists roll - even when they know something for sure they kick for touch. They are naturally extremely conservative, and on that note I am wastiing my time arguing with people who are entrenched in their position. There is no evidence in existence that will convince you otherwise, much like the Christian who believes in creation and refuses to even consider the evidence to the contrary.

Goodbye.

No just don't think I should have to pay for some fat bastard to get rich. If the Carbon trading and carbon taxes were going to fix anything then fine, but they aren't so it is just a fine (pun intended in case you missed it) on those least able to resist.

No Scientists don't say "very likely" when the mean certainly. The rest of the quoted article gives the lie to your attempt at glossing over the cracks there. Too many scientific sureties, well they were before all the facts were in, have been turned on there heads by later research. This is why scientists use terms like 'very likely' it means not certain and shouldn't be treated as such.

Funny you bring up religion in your final shot, because a lot of people arguing climate change or the other denomination, global warming, get very religious about there beliefs. I know you will take this the wrong way - tough - but I don't believe, call me agnostic if you like.

Winston001

20th June 2011, 21:14

No just don't think I should have to pay for some fat bastard to get rich. If the Carbon trading and carbon taxes were going to fix anything then fine, but they aren't so it is just a fine (pun intended in case you missed it) on those least able to resist.

I'm genuinely puzzled why you (and many others to be fair) think taxing carbon technologies is simply a scam created by some Wall Street traders?

Firstly the oil companies would scream at any rort like this.

Secondly it requires politicians to impose new taxes. Thats a death sentence to a politician - especially when the public don't understand it. Why would any pollie without good evidence agree to the idea? The Aussies have far more money than us - why haven't they been pushed by the money men into this yet? By contrast why have the Europeans with all their universities and left-wing contempt for finance been taxing carbon for the past 5 years?

Too many scientific sureties, well they were before all the facts were in, have been turned on there heads by later research.This is a common misconception with many people. As I posted a few days ago, there have been very few revolutions in science. Instead ideas are refined and made more accurate as more experiments and data is gathered.

For example, quantum theory points to vacuum energy whereby particles wink in and out of existence in deep space. This could be the source of Dark Energy...but the Cosmological Constant (and expansion of the Universe) is at far higher energy levels than vacuum energy can account for.

So...the vacuum energy theory might be wrong. The energy may be only contained within hadrons which we hope the LHC can tell us eventually. But no revolution is taking place in science, just getting a bit wiser day by day.

Funny you bring up religion in your final shot, because a lot of people arguing climate change or the other denomination, global warming, get very religious about there beliefs. I know you will take this the wrong way - tough - but I don't believe, call me agnostic if you like.I dunno. I think you have to give Shrub this one. The passion and emotion in global warming arguments always comes from deniers and has much in common with religious zealotry. By comparison people who think there is a problem tend to be rational and discursive, and willing to consider other points of view.

Scuba_Steve

20th June 2011, 21:41

I'm genuinely puzzled why you (and many others to be fair) think taxing carbon technologies is simply a scam created by some Wall Street traders?

ummm cause it is.

Firstly the oil companies would scream at any rort like this.

BP & Shell have invested in this scam (not sure about exxon mobil & the others) so why would they be trying to stop something set to bring them more $$$???

Secondly it requires politicians to impose new taxes. Thats a death sentence to a politician - especially when the public don't understand it. Why would any pollie without good evidence agree to the idea? The Aussies have far more money than us - why haven't they been pushed by the money men into this yet? By contrast why have the Europeans with all their universities and left-wing contempt for finance been taxing carbon for the past 5 years?

Why are bikers being raped by ACC??? Why did GST go up??? Why is their a tax on a tax on a tax??? cause "the people let it happen".

oh & FYI Labour (the ones that were in power with the signing) are no longer our dictator, National is now. Same shit different colour.

I dunno. I think you have to give Shrub this one. The passion and emotion in global warming arguments always comes from deniers and has much in common with religious zealotry. By comparison people who think there is a problem tend to be rational and discursive, and willing to consider other points of view.

:scratch: your part of the carbon religion aint you??? explains your warped view point :yes:. No side is any better or worse with they're religious views/arguments to say so is ignorant or stupid

Winston001

20th June 2011, 22:44

Perhaps the Earths core is cooling. Maybe it's heating. Maybe it takes a really really long time for the Earths core to heat and cool in response to the suns activity...

The Earth's inner core is solid nickel-iron at 5400 degrees C. The outer core is liquid iron at a lesser pressure. Most of the Earth's heat is contained within the mantle which is the main mass of the planet. That heat is in small part left-over from the original collapse of rock etc to form the Earth.

However 90% of the Earths internal heat is caused by radioactive decay. Potassium, uranium, and thorium. The Sun is a big deal at the surface but has a negligible effect on the temperature below our feet. Photons from the Sun penetrate a few inches at best.

Jantar

20th June 2011, 22:56

...The Sun is a big deal at the surface but has a negligible effect on the temperature below our feet. Photons from the Sun penetrate a few inches at best.

The sun's energy is carried further down by conduction. But ALL traces of solar energy are gone within a few meters, and at depths of more than 5 m the rock temperature is almost constant, increasing with greater depth.

Edbear

25th June 2011, 10:07

carbonhed

25th June 2011, 10:15

Edbear

25th June 2011, 10:21

Just another Greepeace circle jerk.

It backs up all the available scientific research done to date, I've studied the oceans for a long time.

Edbear

25th June 2011, 10:31

Not in my backyard..?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10734070

Ocean1

25th June 2011, 10:33

There's trouble ahead...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10733621

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10734068

And Man is the culprit!

I see at least one of their number has attributed much of the trend to global warming. Be interesting to analyse their data, only they don't have any, they used "existing" sources. I'm tolerably sure they don't have the required set to be making such claims.

Thing is it's impossible to trend global ocean temperatures, they're massively affected by changes in current flow. You'd have to measure an impossibly high number of sites to even begin to acquire the nescessary breadth of data.

I don't believe you have to go past polution and overfishing to explain the damage myself. We were active early in introducing quotas, we just need to make sure they're doing the job. It'd be nice if most of what we did catch wasn't fucked off overseas, but that's another issue.

And polution. Our back yord is hardly pristine, we could be doing much more to prevent it becoming worse let alone pick up our existing discarded toys. Still, and again, we do better than most. The trick is telling the emerging giants that they can't have what we've got because it means doing bad shit.

mashman

25th June 2011, 11:25

It backs up all the available scientific research done to date, I've studied the oceans for a long time.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we're over fishing our waters (and politing etc...) to cater for a "demand"... and have been for decades, if not for centuries. Removing money "cures" that.

If it's a normal Earth "process" that's under way, then we really are in the shit. Fingers crossed eh :) :shifty:

shrub

26th June 2011, 16:03

I'm genuinely puzzled why you (and many others to be fair) think taxing carbon technologies is simply a scam created by some Wall Street traders?

Taxing carbon pollution was going to hurt some industries, especialy if it happened rapidly, so the impetus needed to be slowed. So the message "It's all a scam to make you pay more taxes", and "the scientists are only saying that AGW is a real problem because that's how they get funding" was put out. And because nobody wants to be scammed, it took off despite being completely fallacious.

I dunno. I think you have to give Shrub this one. The passion and emotion in global warming arguments always comes from deniers and has much in common with religious zealotry. By comparison people who think there is a problem tend to be rational and discursive, and willing to consider other points of view.

Throughout history religion and science have often been at odds because science is based on reason and proof whereas religion is based on accepting concepts without challenging them or requiring any proof at all. It has amused me that the deniers display all the characteristics of religious accolytes yet use that accusation to denigrate the scientific community, and it has also amused me that many of the most fervent of the deniers come from fundamentalist christian groups.

oldrider

26th June 2011, 17:38

Interesting stuff on solar activity (not the blog or blogger imdying please note) you might like to look at!

http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/solar-weather

We humans are really small players in this huge space thing we live in!

It will do what it wants regardless of any silly bloody carbon tax! :mellow:

slowpoke

26th June 2011, 22:55

Throughout history religion and science have often been at odds because science is based on reason and proof whereas religion is based on accepting concepts without challenging them or requiring any proof at all. It has amused me that the deniers display all the characteristics of religious accolytes yet use that accusation to denigrate the scientific community, and it has also amused me that many of the most fervent of the deniers come from fundamentalist christian groups.

Haha, I'd actually say it was the other way around. To even mention that there is some contradictory evidence or huge variance in global warming "estimates" is to be hung drawn and quartered publically and politically. That "scientists" have stifled such debate is a blight on academia and science as a whole. Climate science and global warming is a growth industry, much as was Y2k, and a hell of a lot of people and projects rest on keeping it so. Fear is a powerful motivator and makes for guaranteed headlines. It's as shame the truth and reasoned debate gets lost along the way.

Jantar

26th June 2011, 23:15

........ It has amused me that the deniers display all the characteristics of religious accolytes yet use that accusation to denigrate the scientific community, and it has also amused me that many of the most fervent of the deniers come from fundamentalist christian groups.

You have evidence of that? Most skeptics I know are agnostic. There are some who are religious, but I don't know of any who belong to any fundamentalist group.

Or maybe it is only the deniers who are religious. But the only deniers are those who refuse to look at the science, and the are more of those on the warmist side than the skeptic side. shrub, you and I have been here before, but I'll ask you again.

"What would you consider to be sufficient evidence to falsify the AGW theory?"

In other words, what exactly is this warming hypothesis and what is the counter factual?

Winston001

27th June 2011, 12:06

"What would you consider to be sufficient evidence to falsify the AGW theory?"

In other words, what exactly is this warming hypothesis and what is the counter factual?

I'll give it a quick go: the warming hypothesis is that human activity since the industrial age (1840ish) has released billions of tons of stored carbon into the environment. Carbon taken out of the environment over a period of 400 million years. Released in 150 years.

Normal geologic and biologic activity puts carbon out every year. At the same time it is reabsorbed. The extra 4% humans add sounds like very little except compounded over 150 years, it adds up and is changing the Earth's biosphere.

The counter argument: 4% year on year is insignificant and it might be only 1%. The natural carbon balance may be changing because of geological pressures and/or variations in the Sun's intensity. For example perma-frost decay (melting) contributes tons of carbon to the ocean. That could be the result of warming in the Earth's crust or the sunlight.

Jantar

27th June 2011, 18:21

I'll give it a quick go: the warming hypothesis is that human activity since the industrial age (1840ish) has released billions of tons of stored carbon into the environment. Carbon taken out of the environment over a period of 400 million years. Released in 150 years.

Normal geologic and biologic activity puts carbon out every year. At the same time it is reabsorbed. The extra 4% humans add sounds like very little except compounded over 150 years, it adds up and is changing the Earth's biosphere.

The counter argument: 4% year on year is insignificant and it might be only 1%. The natural carbon balance may be changing because of geological pressures and/or variations in the Sun's intensity. For example perma-frost decay (melting) contributes tons of carbon to the ocean. That could be the result of warming in the Earth's crust or the sunlight.

Thanks Winston. There is no argument against the fact that man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That has never been disputed. There is uncertainty as to how long that extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere with various peer reviewed papers giving a range of only 2 years up to thousands of years, so there is uncertainty there.

However surely that isn't the whole theory of AGW? There is no mention of temperature or even heat content in that. There is certainly no relationship to climate with respect to CO2 concentration.

What I suspect is that the claimed AGW theory is that as CO2 concentration increases there will be an increase in atmospheric temperature. All scientists that I know accept this basic premise. The real difference in opinion comes with how much that temperature will change with CO2 concentrations, and that amount depends on feedbacks. Just what value the coefficient of the feedback should be is in great dispute. The IPCC assume a large positive feedback, various climate models use a value between 0 (no feedback) to 3.7. It is partly these various feedback coefficients that give a range of temperature increases for a doubling of CO2.

Most skeptics believe that the coefficient is less than 1 and many even claim that the major feedbacks are negative.

That is why I ask, what is the hypothesis, and how can it be falsified?

Winston001

27th June 2011, 20:55

Yes Jantar, from what I know you express the theory correctly. Essentially greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is significant) trap infrared heat within the atmosphere and the temperature builds up. Its happened often in the distant past, in fact the Earth has been relatively cool in human times.

Still, our industrial activities dirty the nest. That is my core concern. I consider AGW to be a red herring. Our real problems arise from overpopulation, pollution, and IMHO the likely collapse of the biosphere.

Simply put - we dig/burn/waste more chemicals than the natural environment can absorb. We kill living biology faster than it can reproduce - not just trees, fish etc but the tiny microbes at the base of our entire ecology.

puddytat

27th June 2011, 22:34

Chicken Little was right all along .....

Jantar

27th June 2011, 22:41

...

Still, our industrial activities dirty the nest. That is my core concern. I consider AGW to be a red herring. .....
And I'm with you on that one. One of my main concerns is the environment and I'm all for planting more trees, keeping Dairy away from our waterways, less use of chemicals in agriculture etc. But I'm against trying to fight nature, and blaming man for effects that are mainly natural, like climate change, is a fight against nature.

That is why I keep asking, "What evidence is required to falsify the AGW theory?"

shrub

28th June 2011, 10:18

You have evidence of that? Most skeptics I know are agnostic. There are some who are religious, but I don't know of any who belong to any fundamentalist group.Or maybe it is only the deniers who are religious. But the only deniers are those who refuse to look at the science, and the are more of those on the warmist side than the skeptic side.

I did a quick search, and it seems i was a little out of touch as even some of the more staunch evangelical groups are changing their stance and accepting climate change. I based my opinion on reading some of the blogs (including ones used here) that were frequently written and/or funded by fundamentalist christian groups, but they are dying out.

I would go as far as to say all skeptics are agnostic, including me, because the very nature of skepticism is contrary to religion, and good scientists are required to be the greatest of all skeptics. And yes, I am a skeptic about damn near everything, including climate change, however i am afflicted by something called cognitive dissonance so find it hard to deny what I see in front of me.

"What would you consider to be sufficient evidence to falsify the AGW theory?" In other words, what exactly is this warming hypothesis and what is the counter factual?

That the climate is changing and the global mean temperature is rising is not in doubt, so we have the question "why is this happening?"

I see H1 as being "human activity is releasing enormous amounts of carbpon into the atmosphere"
H1a is "the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly"

both of these hypotheses have been supported and the null has been denied.

H2 is "Solar energy enters the atmosphere as short wavelength light"

H3 is "That energy is converted to long wavelength thermal energy"

Given that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that energy needs to leave the atmosphere or the planet will warm up.

H4 is "the ability of long wave thermal energy to pass through the atmosphere is influenced by the makeup of that atmosphere, specifically the concentration of Carbon".

All of these hypotheses in a myriad of variations have been supported in a hundred thousand studies and none have been successfully challenged.

if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

Scuba_Steve

28th June 2011, 10:32

here's another theory for ya all, the earth is often regarded a "living being" now we 'man' put a hole in the ozone making the earth "sick", what do other "living beings" do when sick??? They heat up to heal themselves.
So the earth is apparently heating up & Aussie scientists say the ozone hole is shrinking, so could it not be the earth is just healing itself???

No wait, can't tax that... my bad :facepalm:, I'll try to come back with something that is taxable (you know to make it "credible" :shutup:)

shrub

28th June 2011, 10:33

Thanks Winston. There is no argument against the fact that man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That has never been disputed. There is uncertainty as to how long that extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere with various peer reviewed papers giving a range of only 2 years up to thousands of years, so there is uncertainty there.

Actually there is little uncertainty in how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

The answer is from 2 years to thousands of years. I light a fire and carbon gets released into the atmosphere, and some of that carbon gets snaffled up by the trees on my section, the ocean, the neighbour's lawn etc, so it has been in the atmosphere bugger all time, but some of the carbon my trees are absorbing was released 20 years ago, 100 years ago and thousands of years ago and some of the carbon my fire has released will still be in the atmosphere in 1000 years time.

I like motorcycle analogies. I fill my half full tank and ride down the road, and 100 km away I discover my tank is half full. Did the fuel I bought get used before the fuel I bought last week? Or did I use up last weeks fuel, and this morning's fuel is slopping around waiting to be converted into speed? The truth is I used some of the fuel I bought this morning, some from last week and potentially some of the fuel that i put in 2 years ago. Does that mean there is doubt about how long fuel stays in a tank?

The problem is because we are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than the existing sinks can absorb, so the concentration is increasing.

shrub

28th June 2011, 10:36

Winston001

28th June 2011, 10:36

That the climate is changing and the global mean temperature is rising is not in doubt, so we have the question "why is this happening?"

I see H1 as being "human activity is releasing enormous amounts of carbpon into the atmosphere"
H1a is "the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly"

both of these hypotheses have been supported and the null has been denied.

if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

I agree with you but in the interests of balance, those opposed to AGW point to natural sources of both organic and inorganic carbon entering the environment. For example melting permafrost could simply be the result of the Earth entering a warming cycle.

The best estimate I've come across (realclimate.org) is man's contribution at 4%pa. It could be less.

Ergo observing warming trends and elevated CO2 does not prove mankind is the cause. A factor yes, a contributor yes, but significant...??

Dammit YES. :D

Jantar

28th June 2011, 10:45

.......
if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

Ah, the exclusion principle fallacy. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.” This principle was proved false back in the times of Darwin, and is still false today.

So all I have to do is show that some other phenomenon can cause the temperature to rise at rates seen since man started increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are three ways this can be achieved: One is to show that similar rates of temperature rise occured in the past without CO2 increasing at the rates we are currently seeing, thus providing evidence that there must be another mechanism; the second is tho show that CO2 has continued to rise at the same or an increasing rate, but temperatures haven't increased at the same rate; and the third is to show a correlation with a mechanism other than CO2.

Any one of these three would therefore falsify that theory. I'm at work just now, but I will put up data for at least 2 of these falsifications later this week.

shrub

28th June 2011, 10:50

I agree with you but in the interests of balance, those opposed to AGW point to natural sources of both organic and inorganic carbon entering the environment. For example melting permafrost could simply be the result of the Earth entering a warming cycle.

It could be, but all the research suggests that the earth is not meant to be entering a warming cycle. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the only source of warming big enough to heat the planet is the sun, and Jantar has identified that solar energy is decreasing.

The best estimate I've come across (realclimate.org) is man's contribution at 4%pa. It could be less. Ergo observing warming trends and elevated CO2 does not prove mankind is the cause. A factor yes, a contributor yes, but significant...??

For billions of years solar energy has been converted to carbon through photosynthesis, and that carbon has ended up stored underground. For the last 150 years or so we have turned as much of that carbon as we could into heat and in so doing released carbon into the atmosphere.

Our 4% is highly significant because the ecosystem is a very finely tuned mechanism, and even a small change has an impact, especially over time. What would be the impact of advancing your ignition timing 4%?

shrub

28th June 2011, 11:02

Ah, the exclusion principle fallacy. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.” This principle was proved false back in the times of Darwin, and is still false today.

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.

So all I have to do is show that some other phenomenon can cause the temperature to rise at rates seen since man started increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are three ways this can be achieved: One is to show that similar rates of temperature rise occured in the past without CO2 increasing at the rates we are currently seeing, thus providing evidence that there must be another mechanism.

Correct, but I want to know that that other mechanism is present now.

The second is tho show that CO2 has continued to rise at the same or an increasing rate, but temperatures haven't increased at the same rate;

Again, correct, but I will want to know that the other factors that influenced temperature change were the same as they are now.

and the third is to show a correlation with a mechanism other than CO2.

Incorrect. Correlation is not cause. I could argue that temperatures have risen in direct correlation with women engaging in the political process or the use of synthetic fibres in ladies underwear, but they are not causes.

My motorcycle slowed down yesterday because I had my fingers on the brake, therefore when it slowed down this morning I must have had my fingers on the brake too. Or was it because I was riding up a hill and hadn't increased my throttle opening? Or was I running out of gas? The independent variables need to be constant or accounted for in the final calculation, and that is where I think you will struggle.

Jantar

28th June 2011, 11:09

It could be, but all the research suggests that the earth is not meant to be entering a warming cycle. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the only source of warming big enough to heat the planet is the sun, and Jantar has identified that solar energy is decreasing.....

Here's an experiment for you:

Place a pot of water on the stove and turn up the elment to its lowest setting. Wait until a few minutes and record its temperature. Now turn the thermostat up to a quarter, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, turn it up to half, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, turn it up to full, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature. I bet its still increasing.

Now turn it back to 3/4, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature. It is now on a cooling cycle, but guess what, I bet its still increasing. Turn it back to half, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, guess what, I bet its still increasing.

Its just like our seasons, the hottest part of summer comes around one month after the longest day, and the coolest part of winter comes around one month after the shortest day.

We have been through a warming cycle with positive PDO, active solar cycles etc, but now the PDO has turned negative around 10 years ago, and the solar cycles appear to entering a grand minima. There has now been no significant warming since 1995 according to 3 of the 4 temperature data sets, and 2 of them are now starting to show a cooling trend. I'll present the actual data later in the week when I can work from home.

oneofsix

28th June 2011, 11:17

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.

Correct, but I want to know that that other mechanism is present now.

Again, correct, but I will want to know that the other factors that influenced temperature change were the same as they are now.

Incorrect. Correlation is not cause. I could argue that temperatures have risen in direct correlation with women engaging in the political process or the use of synthetic fibres in ladies underwear, but they are not causes.

My motorcycle slowed down yesterday because I had my fingers on the brake, therefore when it slowed down this morning I must have had my fingers on the brake too. Or was it because I was riding up a hill and hadn't increased my throttle opening? Or was I running out of gas? The independent variables need to be constant or accounted for in the final calculation, and that is where I think you will struggle.

Ockham's razor is exactly what you reject when you reject the sun as the primary source of the warming and go on trying to justify all these complicated CO2 theories.

shrub

28th June 2011, 11:24

There has now been no significant warming since 1995 according to 3 of the 4 temperature data sets, and 2 of them are now starting to show a cooling trend. I'll present the actual data later in the week when I can work from home.

I believe you are incorrect. I will be very interested to see what you have and I trust you will provide me with sources.

The following contradict you:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/rising-global-temperatures-spur-steepest-sea-level-rise-2100-years-new-study-finds

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119841&org=NSF&from=news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/2010-joint-warmest-on-record

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

shrub

28th June 2011, 11:28

Ockham's razor is exactly what you reject when you reject the sun as the primary source of the warming and go on trying to justify all these complicated CO2 theories.

*sighs* No, i never dismissed the sun as the primary cause of warming. I merely pointed out (and Jantar supported me) that solar activity was declining at the same time temperature was increasing, therefore it is something else that is causing the rise in temperature and the simplest and most logical something else is atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases causing heat to be retained.

Edbear

28th June 2011, 11:36

Jantar

28th June 2011, 11:36

...

The following contradict you:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/rising-global-temperatures-spur-steepest-sea-level-rise-2100-years-new-study-finds

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119841&org=NSF&from=news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/2010-joint-warmest-on-record

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

The first three items are newspaper reports, not the actual data. The first two of those refer to a report that has already been shown to suffer from the same statisitical errors as Mann's Hockey stick. But no wonder, Mann was one of the authors. The study tries to show global sea level rise based on a single small section of the USA coast. That's as bad as trying to recreate 1000 years of proxy data based on a single Yamal tree.

Your 4th link is to the only one of the four temperature series that shows a significant temperature rise, and it's also the one that has undergone the greatest changes to early data.

shrub

28th June 2011, 12:02

The first three items are newspaper reports

Wrong - one is a newspaper report, one is from a popular scientific journal and one is a report from the National Science Foundation, a US government funded research organisation.

And there is nothing wrong with the hockey stick or Mann's research despite the best efforts of Mcintyre and Mcintrick - who have since been largely discredited.

Come on, you can do better than that.

Jantar

28th June 2011, 12:11

...And there is nothing wrong with the hockey stick or Mann's research despite the best efforts of Mcintyre and Mcintrick - who have since been largely discredited.

.....

Discredited? When? By whom? And how about Wegman also showing that Mann's method was wrong?

shrub

28th June 2011, 12:22

Discredited? When? By whom? And how about Wegman also showing that Mann's method was wrong?

Like you I am supposed to be at work so don't have time to spend debating minutae when you are unlikely to change your position and I am still waiting on one single robust argument for your position, but this popped up with a quick google and seems sound at first glance: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

mashman

28th June 2011, 12:49

The only support I can see for AGW is that we pave paradise. Where once trees burned unabated (due to no natural "fire break") and filled the atmosphere with CO2 etc... they also grew back over a period of hundreds of years. They don't grow back after being sprayed and walk awayed... let alone being replaced with non indigenous foliage. Other than that (probably enough to lend weight to the argument), I can't see that AGW matters a jot other than to local eco-systems (although again, that could much more damaging than we know).

shrub

28th June 2011, 13:47

I can't see that AGW matters a jot other than to local eco-systems (although again, that could much more damaging than we know).

Unfortunately you're wrong.

I spend most of my time working in the business world and studying business, and my relaxation is not tramping across unspoilt wilderness or marvelling at some frog or another; it's fucking around with my motorcycle, drinking, eating and the like. I don't give a toss about polar bears, kakapo or even the health of rivers in Otago, but i do give a toss about my lifestyle. I have a nice car, a nice motorcycle, a nice house (in the green zone - that matters down here), a nice fridge and good prospects; and I don't want to lose any of them.

People pay me money to tell them about business and how to make money, and part of that involves looking at the big picture - what's happening in the world and what is likely to happen, and what is influencing events and conditions. Every time I look at climate change I think "This is going to hurt my clients and it's going to hurt me" because our lovely lifestyle won't survive if even the lesser predictions come to fruition.

I have a mate who ignored the IRD for many years because he hated them and hated tax and had read an article somewhere that said he didn't need to pay tax. For many years he was fine and all was good, then the IRD bankrupted him. We're the same, just as ignoring the IRD didn't make them go away, ignoring climate change won't make it go away, no matter how many blogs get published, which is why we need to stop arguing pointless minutae and start developing strategies that will help us protect what we have.

You may be happy to lose your lifestyle, but I'm not.

oneofsix

28th June 2011, 13:57

IRD is real and tangible, no body doubts they exist or their cause.
Climate change happens all the time. The debate is about how real the human affect on it is.
Neither are ignorable but wont you and your business mates look stupid if you screw your lifestyles for nothing. Oops forgot it wont be your lifestyles that get screwed, thanks. :angry:

carbonhed

28th June 2011, 14:39

Mann's "hockeystick" wasn't produced by his proxy data. It was produced by sleight of hand by terminating his proxy data in about 1960 and bolting on a different tempearature set to give the desired uptick at the end. His actual data diverged from the desired result so they "hid the decline" in the usual sly and underhand manner to which we've become accustomed.

Of course this begs the question "if the proxy is crap after 1960 why do we believe it before 1960?"

Big Dave

28th June 2011, 14:48

I spend most of my time working in the business world

Good - now do some fucking work.

mashman

28th June 2011, 16:11

Unfortunately you're wrong.

I spend most of my time working in the business world and studying business, and my relaxation is not tramping across unspoilt wilderness or marvelling at some frog or another; it's fucking around with my motorcycle, drinking, eating and the like. I don't give a toss about polar bears, kakapo or even the health of rivers in Otago, but i do give a toss about my lifestyle. I have a nice car, a nice motorcycle, a nice house (in the green zone - that matters down here), a nice fridge and good prospects; and I don't want to lose any of them.

People pay me money to tell them about business and how to make money, and part of that involves looking at the big picture - what's happening in the world and what is likely to happen, and what is influencing events and conditions. Every time I look at climate change I think "This is going to hurt my clients and it's going to hurt me" because our lovely lifestyle won't survive if even the lesser predictions come to fruition.

I have a mate who ignored the IRD for many years because he hated them and hated tax and had read an article somewhere that said he didn't need to pay tax. For many years he was fine and all was good, then the IRD bankrupted him. We're the same, just as ignoring the IRD didn't make them go away, ignoring climate change won't make it go away, no matter how many blogs get published, which is why we need to stop arguing pointless minutae and start developing strategies that will help us protect what we have.

You may be happy to lose your lifestyle, but I'm not.

Wrong? In what respect?

So you tell people what they want to hear. I guess everyone's gotta earn a living :shifty:...

I too am fed up with the moaning and bitchin about AGW and its affects on Climate Change... pretty fuckin pointless if you don't intend to do anything about it, or after 20 years still can't make yer minds up. We know what needs to be done. The problem is we can't afford it... or can afford it, but refuse to do anything about it because of our lifestyles... heh, some have more to lose than others.

So, I'd suggest that you and your intelligent business buddies opened their eyes and started thinking about a "free" Local NZ economy. After all 1 large chunk of money makes more than several large chunks of money and there's a whole world out there crying out for the stuff... why not use the system to the advantage of everyone in the country?

Then you and the business brains trust needn't waste time strategising for something you can't prove either way :), let alone do anything about. Then you have your extremes ... Think BOOM and Crack etc..., but hardly unheard of. All needs to be paid for, even though the resources are lying all around you... much better to talk sense than cents imho.

Why would I lose my lifestyle? I can't see why you would lose yours either. What are you scared of changing that?

shrub

29th June 2011, 09:45

Wrong? In what respect?

So you tell people what they want to hear. I guess everyone's gotta earn a living :shifty:..

Why would I lose my lifestyle? I can't see why you would lose yours either. What are you scared of changing that?

Unfortunately I often tell people what they don't want to hear, and that neatly segues into climate change - nobody wants to change, but unfortunately change is the one constant thing in life.

One of the most important things I have learnt over the last 50 years is that change is unavoidable, and that there are four ways of seeing change: First there is change you didn't expect, and change you did; then there is change you don't want, and the change you do. I have recently experienced change I didn't expect or want, and my life has been turned upside down, and that's the next thing - what happens next is determined by what you do.

The more we know about impending changes, the better we can respond to them and the more likely we are to be ready to make them into a change we want, or a change that has the least impact. Which is why scenario forcasting is a very big part of what I do - I look at a businesses operating environments, key internal and external stakeholders etc, and try and get a handle on what is likely to happen. I then get a handle on how likely those events are to occur, and what the outcome of a best case, worst case or most likely situation. From there it's all classic risk management: can you insure, prepare, counter or adapt, and if so how much will it cost?

I have looked at climate change from the boring commercial perspective, and made a call as to how likely it is to occur, and the reality is it is, at best, quite likely and probably almost certain. The evidence for is overwhelming and growing whereas the evidence against is pretty defined and hasn't changed in many years despite being countered - in fact most of the arguments against seem to be mostly based on whether Al Gore is in it for the money, the language used in the East Anglia emails and how Mann analysed the data in his infamous hockey stick. And where scientists get their funding. None of which have much to do with the argument itself.

So i have weighed up the arguments and feel that much as I'd like to be a denier, I couldn't advise a client not to worry and sleep at night once they'd paid their invoice. The environment we do business in, live in and play in is very likely change, and much of that change will be unwelcome if we don't prepare for it. It will hit our primary industries hard as rainfall patterns change and I contributed to an internal research paper commissioned by Zespri on climate change, and they are sweating because Kiwifruit flourishes in a narrow band, and if that band changes the existing orchards will face problems. It will hit our markets hard and our suppliers hard, which means it will hit us hard - unless we're ready, and NZ is one of the countries that will come through the changes we're facing the best - if we're prepared.

mashman

29th June 2011, 23:07

Heh, prepared... that's a good one... we're nowhere near close and we will only be able to prepare as far as budget allows. To that end we'll probably never be any where near prepared. What happens when the coffers are empty. Greece? (i'm sure NZ is can do, but we are still at the mercy of the global market, quakes or not (kia kaha shrub et al)).

I would have thought the business community would consider making some rather radical changes that would allow NZ to compete in the global marketplace, also allowing for a "better" platform in regards to addressing climate concerns imho. But is the will there to make those sorts of changes? Does anything go?

The only way to achieve that, imho, is to get rid of the $$$ from the "local" economy. Then we aren't constrained by budget and cost (that excites me in a strange way... noooo not that way), but the money generated is used to keep NZ "trading" with the rest of the world. It would also allow competition to flourish.

Until that time, we will keep fucking more things up than we fix... environment included.

What do your colleagues think of the plastic jebus theory :).

shrub

30th June 2011, 12:22

I would have thought the business community would consider making some rather radical changes that would allow NZ to compete in the global marketplace, also allowing for a "better" platform in regards to addressing climate concerns imho. But is the will there to make those sorts of changes? Does anything go? .

Well off topic, but an interesting point. The NZ business community (and the public) needs to make some radical changes or we will make Greece look like a success story. The last few months have taught me that anything and everything can change rapidly without warning and against all odds. New Zealand is incredibly vulnerable right now because over 50% of our export income comes from primary produce, with dairy contributing over 1/3 of that. Our next biggest earner is tourism (10%).

There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones.

We have to change what we do and how, and it's been forgotten, but we need to engage in the knowledge economy which means we need to become a high-tech country that exports knowledge and technology, not milk powder. We have a predominantly well educated population and several universities and allied tertiary institutes of international calibre, so we need to capitalise on that. We need more engineers, technicians and designers; not more dairy farms or more Chinese tourists. We need John Brittens, not Allan Crafars, and we need to retain ownership of our businesses, our energy and our land, not sell it to overseas investors.

And we need to take control of our exchange rate. We are far too small and vulnerable for a floating exchange rate, but that's another debate.

carbonhed

30th June 2011, 16:35

There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones.

So what's the many big bad events that climate change is behind?

shrub

30th June 2011, 16:46

So what's the many big bad events that climate change is behind?

Just a few off the top of my head:

Change in rainfall patterns mean some areas get droughts and others too wet
Warming meaning cold snaps required for setting of some fruit unlikely to occur
Warming meaning pests that don't survive in some areas can, and will hit species hard
Increasing extreme weather events raising insurance costs
Increasing demand from trading partners and international buyers to account for carbon footprints - google food miles

I won't waste my time with any more because your response will be something like "but I don't want to pay any more tax" or "Al Gore is scamming us". I doubt you understand any of it anyway and are merely parrotting what your mate Bill at the pub said.

carbonhed

30th June 2011, 17:44

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy"

Just none that you can actually put your finger on sadly... but entirely predictably.

I've worked in Primary industries my whole life and you're just not grasping how flexible it is. The kiwifruit industry is what... 35 years old, wine in Marlborough similar, wine on the Gimblet Gravels... 15? Dairying in the South Island... explodes over the last decade. It is constantly evolving and adapting to prevailing conditions.

Changes in precipitation patterns... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Winter chilling requirements changing... the crop will move... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Pests and diseases changing... they change all the time... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Increasing extreme weather events raising insurance costs? They've already pulled that scam once at least on the basis of a flawed study that didn't allow for the fact that we're building expensive coastal properties as fast as we can and so whenever there's a big typhoon OF COURSE the bills are getting bigger. Gut the economy... don't be stupid.

More stupid carbon taxes? Possibly... but Kyoto's dead in the water... and the tide's long since turned against any hope of reviving it. Gut the economy... don't be stupid.

So once again we've got the climate hysteric waving his arms around... "the sky is falling WAH WAH WAH WAH"... and as soon as you look closer at the bullshit it... simply vanishes.

Do you work in local government? Because all the local councils are doing this climate change preparedness schtick... and you can only guess at the biblical levels of stupidity that we're paying for.

Jantar

30th June 2011, 18:40

....

Do you work in local government? Because all the local councils are doing this climate change preparedness schtick... and you can only guess at the biblical levels of stupidity that we're paying for.

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

carbonhed

30th June 2011, 19:00

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

So you can adapt. I can adapt... but stoopids doomed :woohoo:

slowpoke

30th June 2011, 20:53

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.

Occam's Razor: "The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. "

Considering the wildly varying guesstimates regarding climate change that we are prepared to base short term economic policy on such a vague long term threat defies commonsense. If any other industry ("climate change is an industry), gave such a disparity in conclusions we'd dismiss it out of hand.

But all this is merely semantics, as are most of the arguments put forward so far. When the government starts telling me how crippling the businesses and populace of a small insignificant country via an emissions trading scheme is going to change a bloody thing I'll start to pay attention to the issue rather than the revenue raising opportunity it presents.

Ocean1

30th June 2011, 21:09

...we'd dismiss it out of hand.

I'm way ahead of you.

shrub

1st July 2011, 08:18

Occam's Razor: "The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. "

Considering the wildly varying guesstimates regarding climate change that we are prepared to base short term economic policy on such a vague long term threat defies commonsense. If any other industry ("climate change is an industry), gave such a disparity in conclusions we'd dismiss it out of hand.

But all this is merely semantics, as are most of the arguments put forward so far. When the government starts telling me how crippling the businesses and populace of a small insignificant country via an emissions trading scheme is going to change a bloody thing I'll start to pay attention to the issue rather than the revenue raising opportunity it presents.

Well done for putting quote marks around your c&p from wikipaedia, very few people here bother. Human activity being the cause of climate change is the most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data.

Climate change is not a long term threat, it's an immediate threat and a current problem. The sea rising to drown Manhatten and polar bears becoming extinct are very definitely long term (I have major problems with Gore's film too), but the planet is warming and the environment is changing. A good mate of mine did his PhD in Alberta studying wolves and caribou, and he said that over the last couple of decades migration patterns have changed and sub arctic species are being hit with diseases that they have no immunity to because the carriers of said diseases used not to be able to survive in the sub arctic regions. In NZ there is a lot of concern that the Mediterranean and Oriental fruit fly species will be able to flourish which would decimate our fruit industry, and all it will take is a 0.8 degree rise in mean temperature.

But nothing in life is black and white, and arable crops will do better thanks to climate change. The increase in carbon will increase cropping of most grains and shorter winters and drier and warmer springs will mean soil can be prepared earlier. An expanded frost-free period will mean frost sensitive crops can be sown over a wider range of times and tropical crops like maize will become viable options in more southern latitudes. All of this means the grower will be able to choose from a wider range of crop types and crop growth duration, giving greater flexibility in their management.

So it's not all bad, if we stop, acknowledge that there is a problem and plan accordingly. Running around in a blind panic saying "it's the end of the world, polar bears are dying and Auckland is about to go underwater" is a silly and pointless as closing your eyes, blocking your ears and saying "it's an evil scam designed to increase taxes".

As for the the ETS, personally I don't particularly like it because it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by purchasing carbon credits, and it creates an industry. My preference is for there to be a carbon tax, that way people who dump their waste in the atmosphere have to pay in the same way i will have to pay when I dump all my broken TVs etc from the quake. it's called user pays. If we had a carbon tax and invested the proceeds in researching clean energy and methods of adapting to climate change, it would be much better for all of us.

shrub

1st July 2011, 08:24

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

And Professor Fitzharris has said that “over the long run, adaptation alone can’t deal with all the projected effects of climate change, even in the richest nations. Eventually adaptation will be insufficient to reduce vulnerability.” (http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2007/2007-04-07-1)

oneofsix

1st July 2011, 08:26

And Professor Fitzharris has said that “over the long run, adaptation alone can’t deal with all the projected effects of climate change, even in the richest nations. Eventually adaptation will be insufficient to reduce vulnerability.” (http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2007/2007-04-07-1)

so we can't do anything about it therefore :drinkup: and be merry. :woohoo:

shrub

1st July 2011, 08:31

so we can't do anything about it therefore :drinkup: and be merry. :woohoo:

I'm doing that anyway, but also setting myself up so i can continue to do so. Preperation is always a good idea.

Spearfish

1st July 2011, 08:53

So new Zealanders, enjoy the fact you can be smugg about paying tax just in case anthropogenic global warming is real.
NZ is disgusting at #72 of the top 100 of co2 emitters with an astounding 0.11%. Australia even goes into whole numbers at 1.28% and #16 on the list, the bastards.....

The countries in the top 100 don't even get into the tens until #3 on the list and even that's the whole EU at 14%. India is #4 with just 5.5% so who are the top three we are paying our tax for?
China at 22.3% .......................and growing
United States at 19.91%
European union at 14%

We know from events like this in our history that if you burn enough women with black cats surly you will have burned at least one witch.

Far canal we are POINT one one percent!:blink:

Even the Swiss are higher than us at a whopping 0.13% and #68

Scuba_Steve

1st July 2011, 09:15

Human activity being the cause of climate change is the most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data.

Evolutionists will not like this at all :no: as God is the "most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data." whereas everything can be written off to "God did it"

Climate change is not a long term threat, it's an immediate threat and a current problem.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:... no wait your right the scam is an immediate problem they're trying to tax us for a religion I for 1 do not believe in!

Auckland is about to go underwater

You say it likes its a bad thing??? :blink:

it's a "scam designed to increase taxes".

Tax is end result, it's a scam to increase big companies profit. There is a reason BP, shell, rockefeller, rothchilds etc invest in this scam :yes:

As for the the ETS, personally I don't particularly like it because it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by purchasing carbon credits, and it creates an industry. My preference is for there to be a carbon tax

where "it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by" paying tax & then passing on that cost + some more profit for themselves, onto the customer... yea I see how thats better :weird: :facepalm:

shrub

1st July 2011, 09:26

Evolutionists will not like this at all :no: as God is the "most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data." whereas everything can be written off to "God did it":

What the fuck is rational about an imaginary being creating everything? I suggest you look up rational in a dictionary.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: tax.... Tax... scam.... scam

yes, quite.

where "it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by" paying tax & then passing on that cost + some more profit for themselves, onto the customer... yea I see how thats better

Let me introduce a radical concept to you - it's called the free market. Company A makes beer and is a big polluter and is taxed accordingly, and then passes on that tax in the form of higher prices to the end consumer. Company B also makes beer, but invests in clean technology and so doesn't pollute and doesn't get taxed, therefore doesn't need to have higher prices.

Both beers taste the same, so which beer will you buy? The expensive beer or the cheap beer? Which company will succeed and which will fail?

Scuba_Steve

1st July 2011, 09:50

What the fuck is rational about an imaginary being creating everything? I suggest you look up rational in a dictionary.

No-one said imaginary

Let me introduce a radical concept to you - it's called the free market. Company A makes beer and is a big polluter and is taxed accordingly, and then passes on that tax in the form of higher prices to the end consumer. Company B also makes beer, but invests in clean technology and so doesn't pollute and doesn't get taxed, therefore doesn't need to have higher prices.
Umm company B has higher setup or re-setup costs so has to charge more because of that & even if we pretend they didn't since company A sells at a higher price (because they have to) company B will also sell at a similar price to maximize profits end result, nothing changes, consumers pay more

... And people actually pay you to tell them about business??? :facepalm:

oneofsix

1st July 2011, 09:55

shrub

1st July 2011, 10:00

No-one said imaginary

Umm company B has higher setup or re-setup costs so has to charge more because of that & even if we pretend they didn't since company A sells at a higher price (because they have to) company B will also sell at a similar price to maximize profits end result, nothing changes, consumers pay more

... And people actually pay you to tell them about business??? :facepalm:

Jesus wept, why do I waste my time? It's not that simple, if you're starting from scratch, clean technology typically costs between -2% (cheaper) and + 12% (more expensive), depending on the industry and technology. However the ongoing operational costs of cleantech systems are significantly lower. I did some work for a wine manufacturer in Marlborough last year and they have noticed a 22% reduction in operating costs since they achieved carbon neutrality which gives them a payback of just over 2 years.

And because they are now carbon neutral they have found international market acceptance of their wine has increased substantially and they now export 90% of their production, mostly to Europe.

Maha

1st July 2011, 10:07

Scientific claptrap...
Never ceases to amaze me when some catastrophic (or even minor) natural event happens, there has to be some blame attributed to the ''global warming'' phenomenom.

Then ''they'' go on to say that...''an event like this has not happen since 1923''...:blink:

Eh?... so it has happen before then?...:facepalm:

Its the natural cycle of the planet upon which we all live.

shrub

1st July 2011, 10:45

Scientific claptrap...

Yeah, bloody scientists. What do they know? Bill down at the pub has all the answers, and he gets is info from the internet so I'll listen to him first every day. Plus he has a beauty Commodore ute and a grouse missus :not:, and you gotta take guys like that seriously. University - what the hell did anyone ever learn from a university? All them bloody students do is take drugs and shag each other, bet none of them can strip a Massey Ferguson tractor.:gob:

Bill reckons Al Gore has a mountain hideaway and is using tingle rays to manipulate the world's leaders, scientists (bloody idiots that they are) and the media to believe in climate change so he can make money. And Bill's mate Pete :love: reckons that the government are in league with Al Gore :angry:and are changing the weather so they can increase our taxes.

Bastards!:mad::mad::mad:

NighthawkNZ

1st July 2011, 11:05

Yeah, bloody scientists.

blah blah blah...

Bastards!:mad::mad::mad:

Nah its them aliems I tells yah...

shrub

1st July 2011, 11:07

Nah its them aliems I tells yah...

nah, they'd be more interested in probing us than taxing us.:shit:

carbonhed

1st July 2011, 15:35

In NZ there is a lot of concern that the Mediterranean and Oriental fruit fly species will be able to flourish which would decimate our fruit industry, and all it will take is a 0.8 degree rise in mean temperature.

Horseshit again I'm afraid. Oriental, Mediterranean and Queensland fruit fly are all terrible threats now and capable of establishing a permanent presence now...

I realise there's a financial incentive for you in spreading this alarmist bullshit but do you actually have any real examples to back this statement up? :-

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones."

shrub

1st July 2011, 16:41

Horseshit again I'm afraid. Oriental, Mediterranean and Queensland fruit fly are all terrible threats now and capable of establishing a permanent presence now...

I realise there's a financial incentive for you in spreading this alarmist bullshit but do you actually have any real examples to back this statement up? :-

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones."

Why do I waste my time? They (and many other pests) are capable of establishing a permanent presence in many areas, including Te Puke, but not of flourishing and that's the difference. If temperatures rise then suddenly the rules change and the bugs that fly off a ship at the mount instead of struggling along until they get eaten by a passing sparrow breed like crazy.

And as for "financial incentives", I'll actually be much better off in the long term if climate change never happens and in the short and medium term it makes absolutely no difference to me at all. In fact the amount of time I waste chatting to chimps like you means climate change is probably costing me money.

And on that note, I have beer that needs drinking and that's more interesting and attractive than you are.

carbonhed

1st July 2011, 17:38

Why do I waste my time? They (and many other pests) are capable of establishing a permanent presence in many areas, including Te Puke, but not of flourishing and that's the difference. If temperatures rise then suddenly the rules change and the bugs that fly off a ship at the mount instead of struggling along until they get eaten by a passing sparrow breed like crazy.

Nah... horseshit again I'm afraid. If they can overwinter successfully then it would get bloody over the warmer months... but then this is my job and area of expertise so kicking your arse up and down the internet, though entertaining, is hardly sporting.

The trouble is you're not really grasping the nature of the problem, the physical damage the little buggers would cause, whilst considerable, is almost irrelevant, the main problem would be that some of our most lucrative export markets would slam shut and stay closed until we eradicated them.

Whether they "thrive" or not.. if they're happy and well adjusted... those damn foreigners just wouldn't give a fuck.

So do you have any more examples of those..

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones."

shrub

3rd July 2011, 11:59

Nah... horseshit again I'm afraid. If they can overwinter successfully then it would get bloody over the warmer months... but then this is my job and area of expertise so kicking your arse up and down the internet, though entertaining, is hardly sporting.

The trouble is you're not really grasping the nature of the problem, the physical damage the little buggers would cause, whilst considerable, is almost irrelevant, the main problem would be that some of our most lucrative export markets would slam shut and stay closed until we eradicated them.

Whether they "thrive" or not.. if they're happy and well adjusted... those damn foreigners just wouldn't give a fuck.

So do you have any more examples of those..

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones."

I'm going to give you that one, I was working off memory and in a hurry and didn't check my facts. In 06 I contributed to a study on the likely impact on the Kiwifruit industry of climate change, and I recalled reading that mediterranean fruit fly would cause major problems. I was wrong and accept that you were right on that count. I work in business analysis with specialist interest and expertise in consumer behaviour and stakeholder engagement. I know bugger all about insects.

However that doesn't change the validity of the argument that climate change is a major problem and is primarily cause by human activity.

As far as climate change potentially causing massive problems - I stand by that. I'm arguably guilty of a little hyperbole, but in my defense I am living in a town that has been devastated by what is essentially a single event that had several impact points over a 9 month period, so I have seen how things can turn to shit and seen how people who should be fine are in the process of losing damn near everything.

We are a tiny little country that has a very small population. We depend on primary produce and tourism for most of our income and too many of our strategic industries (banks etc) are foreign owned. Our level of indebtedness is right in the danger zone and the resources we own are either being squandered or we need foreign entities to be able to access them and will only ever get paid a small royalty - eg coal, oil, gas etc. We are in the middle of the global econcomic crisis with few signs of recovery, or more to the point no evidence of doing anything to get ourselves out of the shit and our 2nd largest city has just been devastated at a potential cost of $20bn - $30bn (and that's the public estimate).

If nothing else goes wrong, dairy continues to boom and tourists keep on coming here we will muddle along and eventually things might even pick up a little.

And that's where climate change could fuck things up. Forget rising sea levels, they won't impact on us for decades and are as much a problem to NZ as polar bears becoming extinct. Primary produce is very vulnerable to weather and climate - ask any farmer, so if climate changes then there is potential for farming, agriculture and forestry to suffer, and they are our cash cow (no pun intended). Tourists come here for our environment, and that is dependent on the climate. If we don't have snow covered mountains people won't come here to look at them.

We have to wake up and recognise that things are changing, and we can't stop that change. Whining about paying tax or how much money Al Gore makes and saying that climate change is all a scam is pointless and even destructive. We need to channel our energies into developing strategies to adapt and change with the climate. If we do, we will be one the best positioned countries in the world and our future is sorted.

mashman

3rd July 2011, 12:52

However that doesn't change the validity of the argument that climate change is a major problem and is primarily cause by human activity.

As far as climate change potentially causing massive problems - I stand by that. I'm arguably guilty of a little hyperbole, but in my defense I am living in a town that has been devastated by what is essentially a single event that had several impact points over a 9 month period, so I have seen how things can turn to shit and seen how people who should be fine are in the process of losing damn near everything.

We are a tiny little country that has a very small population. We depend on primary produce and tourism for most of our income and too many of our strategic industries (banks etc) are foreign owned. Our level of indebtedness is right in the danger zone and the resources we own are either being squandered or we need foreign entities to be able to access them and will only ever get paid a small royalty - eg coal, oil, gas etc. We are in the middle of the global econcomic crisis with few signs of recovery, or more to the point no evidence of doing anything to get ourselves out of the shit and our 2nd largest city has just been devastated at a potential cost of $20bn - $30bn (and that's the public estimate).

If nothing else goes wrong, dairy continues to boom and tourists keep on coming here we will muddle along and eventually things might even pick up a little.

And that's where climate change could fuck things up. Forget rising sea levels, they won't impact on us for decades and are as much a problem to NZ as polar bears becoming extinct. Primary produce is very vulnerable to weather and climate - ask any farmer, so if climate changes then there is potential for farming, agriculture and forestry to suffer, and they are our cash cow (no pun intended). Tourists come here for our environment, and that is dependent on the climate. If we don't have snow covered mountains people won't come here to look at them.

We have to wake up and recognise that things are changing, and we can't stop that change. Whining about paying tax or how much money Al Gore makes and saying that climate change is all a scam is pointless and even destructive. We need to channel our energies into developing strategies to adapt and change with the climate. If we do, we will be one the best positioned countries in the world and our future is sorted.

Interest rate 5%:

$100 + $5
$100,000 + $5,000
$1,000,000,000 + $5,000,000

etc...

How many people do we have? How much money do we have? Free money, "unborrowed" money (put it into clean and green research?) The world needs money at the moment, right? That's about the only way you can use our size to our advantage in the global market place imho... Perhaps the "brains" of the world would move to NZ and setup shop, if only because we have money to spend?

shrub

3rd July 2011, 12:55

Interest rate 5%:

$100 + $5
$100,000 + $5,000
$1,000,000,000 + $5,000,000

etc...

How many people do we have? How much money do we have? Free money, "unborrowed" money (put it into clean and green research?) The world needs money at the moment, right? That's about the only way you can use our size to our advantage in the global market place imho... Perhaps the "brains" of the world would move to NZ and setup shop, if only because we have money to spend?

Only problem is we don't have any money.

mashman

3rd July 2011, 13:05

Only problem is we don't have any money.

If the wealth is with the top 10% of the population. Then we have money.

Ocean1

3rd July 2011, 16:40

If the wealth is with the top 10% of the population. Then we have money.

Ah, no. They have the money. Thank fuck, 'cause if you had it it'd only be very very briefly.

The top 13% of taxpayers in our country contribute 'prox 75% of the tax take. Conversely, 55% of taxpayers' contributions are in the negative, (by the time you add up all their subsidies).

That leaves not very many people carrying the rest of you fat lazy bastards. You orta be ashamed.

mashman

3rd July 2011, 18:31

Ah, no. They have the money. Thank fuck, 'cause if you had it it'd only be very very briefly.

The top 13% of taxpayers in our country contribute 'prox 75% of the tax take. Conversely, 55% of taxpayers' contributions are in the negative, (by the time you add up all their subsidies).

That leaves not very many people carrying the rest of you fat lazy bastards. You orta be ashamed.

I'd be giving it to the Kiwibank financeers to use to generate wealth on the commodity markets of the world. No point in me having it :).

Wonder why that is? They undertake menial/mundane tasks perhaps? And that 13% probably give to charity too :)... so as well as submitting a lower salary for taxation purposes, they also receive a ?33%? refund, i mean thank you from the govt that I shouldn't be covering... :rofl: Probably enough to look after 2 or 3 families for a year.

Aye... they can't get it right after 5000 years, so they should be able to continue to get it wrong?. Gotcha

jonbuoy

3rd July 2011, 19:31

I'd be giving it to the Kiwibank financeers to use to generate wealth on the commodity markets of the world. No point in me having it :).

:facepalm: Gone in 60 days.

mashman

3rd July 2011, 19:59

:facepalm: Gone in 60 days.

surely not :shit:

carbonhed

6th July 2011, 09:26

I'm going to give you that one. I'm arguably guilty of a little hyperbole

Fair enough. I'd argue over the "little"... much more like "relentless".

But then hyperbole was the very thing that changed me from being an AGW believer into a sceptic so perhaps I'm hypersensitive to bullshit.

And I don't agree that climate change is primarily caused by human behaviour.

Here's an interesting link that discusses climate scepticism :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/28/mooney-on-kahan-on-skeptics/#more-3806

Check out the six lies about sceptics/deniers and see how many you peddle. There's a prize for a clean sweep.

Scuba_Steve

6th July 2011, 09:41

well people latest news is burn coal to keep earth cool (http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-pause-linked-sulfur-china-204224553.html)

oneofsix

6th July 2011, 10:38

well people latest news is burn coal to keep earth cool (http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-pause-linked-sulfur-china-204224553.html)

Got that sorted for you, There is a whole hillside of the stuff burning away down the coast. (no I don't mean Pike River)

shrub

6th July 2011, 11:15

Fair enough. I'd argue over the "little"... much more like "relentless".

But then hyperbole was the very thing that changed me from being an AGW believer into a sceptic so perhaps I'm hypersensitive to bullshit.

And I don't agree that climate change is primarily caused by human behaviour.

Here's an interesting link that discusses climate scepticism :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/28/mooney-on-kahan-on-skeptics/#more-3806

Check out the six lies about sceptics/deniers and see how many you peddle. There's a prize for a clean sweep.

Relentless is your interpretation. I make an effort to stay reasonable and and make a genuine attempt to back my arguments with credible sources.

But let me respond to your list:

Deniers believe that the climate has not warmed
A frequent argument on this site is that the temperature is dropping, or hasn't changed since 1998. When credible sources are cited arguing the opposite those sources are poo pooed for all kinds of reasons.

Deniers are not real scientists
Some are, some aren't. Some are real plumbers, some aren't.

Deniers are a tiny minority of scientists
I wouldn't say tiny, but definitely a minority given that 97.4% of expert climate scientists agree. I suggest you read this paper (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

Deniers are anti-environmental shills of big oil
Some are, some aren't. Some work for fundamentalist Christians, some don't. Some work for universities, some for the local plumber and some are on the dole. Many of the more strident denier lobby groups used to have funding from organisations that would be disadvantged if climate change was taken seriously, but that funding is becoming very hard to trace. BTW the big oil companies are all falling over themselves to position themselves as pro AGW - Shell state that "The world must take action to halve CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change." Are they wrong?

Deniers think CO2 is irrelevant
Many do, and I have read twaddle that says we should aim for 600ppm because that will benefit horticulture, but some don't. However the majority of arguments on this site are that carbon concentration makes no difference, or that we aren't responsible.

Deniers believe humans have no impact on climate
I'd rephrase that to "deniers believe humans have little or no impact on climate change". Isn't that the crux of your argument?

I used to be a rabid denier, and I walked out of Al Gore's film in disgust because I thought it was emotive crap, but to maintain that position would be hard because the evidence is strong and nobody has presented a challenge to the AGW argument that holds water. I also have several friends who are scientists, and while none of them are climate scientists, they all work in environmental fields from forestry to vertabrate control, and they all take it very seriously.

But most importantly, I look out the window and see that things are changing, and when I look for an answer as to why, AGW is the only answer that makes sense. Present me with another reason please, I want to be a denier too, but am afflicted with cognitive dissonance.

carbonhed

6th July 2011, 11:50

There has been no significant warming since since 1998 and it's becoming so problematic for the warmists that they're producing crap like this to explain it :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

From the abstract :-

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Plus of course you completely slide on by the fact that it's been warming since the end of the little ice age and that is what the original quote referred to. Slippery but not to be unexpected.

The study that reported 97.4% of climate scientists agreed had to exclude so much of their original polling data to get the result they wanted you'd almost think they were searching for cooperative Bristlecone Pines.

Big Oil is into renewables in a big way because your stupid policies have made it a big money earner for them. Take the taxpayers money and give it to the usual assholes. Greenpeace and the rest of the Watermelons have taken infinitely more from Big Oil, Govt's and the big money boys.

You can see climate change looking out of your window? :killingme

I used to think I could see the treeline on the little mountain behind my place rising over the decades until I saw a photo of a mate sitting on the top of it surrounded by the blackened stumps of trees that had been burnt off generations earlier. What part of the climate change you can "see" is anthropogenic and what part natural?

shrub

6th July 2011, 12:14

There has been no significant warming since since 1998 and it's becoming so problematic for the warmists that they're producing crap like this to explain it :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

From the abstract :-

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Yes, quite. You missed the next bit: "We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Maybe you should read more than just what supports your position? What they're saying is that factors that cool countered the effect of human activity in warming which explains why temperature growth stabilised for a brief period. And why is it "crap"? Was it because it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and not on a blog? Or was it because it was written by several world renowned experts in climate science and not by your mate Bill down at the pub? Or was it simply because you couldn't understand it? :facepalm:

And when I said I could see the effect of climate change by looking out my window I was speaking metaphorically. If I look out my window I actually see my neighbours house, what I meant was when I observe what's happening around me and in the world beyond me I can see that the climate is changing.

And much as it amuses me to kick you around the internet, it's a little pointless and I have better things to do. :scooter:

carbonhed

6th July 2011, 12:45

Yes, quite. You missed the next bit: "We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Maybe you should read more than just what supports your position? What they're saying is that factors that cool countered the effect of human activity in warming which explains why temperature growth stabilised for a brief period. And why is it "crap"? Was it because it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and not on a blog? Or was it because it was written by several world renowned experts in climate science and not by your mate Bill down at the pub? Or was it simply because you couldn't understand it? :facepalm:

And when I said I could see the effect of climate change by looking out my window I was speaking metaphorically. If I look out my window I actually see my neighbours house, what I meant was when I observe what's happening around me and in the world beyond me I can see that the climate is changing.

And much as it amuses me to kick you around the internet, it's a little pointless and I have better things to do. :scooter:

Ahhh... metaphor and hyperbole... hyperbole and metaphor... bullshit I suspect for the rest of the planet.

And there's an interesting deconstruction of that paper and how it got to be published here :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/#more-3966

shrub

6th July 2011, 13:48

Ahhh... metaphor and hyperbole... hyperbole and metaphor... bullshit I suspect for the rest of the planet.

So I can assume you are unable to counter my argument? Or have you been unable to find any blogs to c&p from?

And there's an interesting deconstruction of that paper and how it got to be published here :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/#more-3966

Er, no. That's a fairly lightweight and unsubstantiated attack on the authors and their conclusions by one Judith Curry. Calling it a deconstruction is like calling a GN250 a chopper.

Interesting woman, she has become something of a poster girl for the deniers and a bit of a sensation in the blogosphere - reminds me of Christians that love to parade the notorious gang member who found Christ and is now rides for Jesus as a patched member of the Redeemed. Pity none of her attempts to cast doubt on the consensus have any substance or are taken seriously outside of the denier community.

Nice try though, and I will give you one thing, you keep on coming back for more.

Jantar

6th July 2011, 14:17

...
I wouldn't say tiny, but definitely a minority given that 97.4% of expert climate scientists agree. I suggest you read this paper (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf).....

From that paper...
With 3146 individuals completing the survey....... 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.

So they discarded 3167 responses before choosing only 79 individuals to calculate their percentage. Anyone researching geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), oceanography (10.5%), General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology (each accounting for 5–7%) were considered to be NOT involved in climate science. This is such poor use of statistics that the claimed result is invalidated.

shrub

6th July 2011, 14:39

From that paper...

So they discarded 3167 responses before choosing only 79 individuals to calculate their percentage. Anyone researching geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), oceanography (10.5%), General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology (each accounting for 5–7%) were considered to be NOT involved in climate science. This is such poor use of statistics that the claimed result is invalidated.

That's not what they said, and you know it. They didn't discard them at all, and the 79 individuals you cite are those who specify that they are climate scientists and more than 50% of their peer reviewed publications have been on climate change - in other words, serious experts.

They broke the sample into general public, non publishers/non climatoligists, climatoligists and active publishers all topics. 58% of the general public agreed with AGW, rising as the expertise of the sample rose, so the more you know the more likely you are to agree. The conclusion was:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes".

Jantar

6th July 2011, 15:04

That's not what they said, and you know it. They didn't discard them at all, and the 79 individuals you cite are those who specify that they are climate scientists and more than 50% of their peer reviewed publications have been on climate change - in other words, serious experts......

That IS what they said, and YOU know it. They did not canvas any members of the general public, but estimated that result from a totally different study:
2. The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx).
Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses. Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and
Martinez [2007].

It was not a random selection of qualified scientists, It was not a statistically neutral questionaire, and it was a very unscientific method that produced the results.

shrub

6th July 2011, 16:25

You're trying to erect a strawman, you're better than that.

That IS what they said, and YOU know it. They did not canvas any members of the general public, but estimated that result from a totally different study:

The paper was not titled "popular consensus on climate change" so the general public figure was illustrative only.

Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses.
97% of climate scientists who actively publish agree with AGW. There were only 79 in their sample and 97% of that 79 agreed. Maybe if they had found 179, or 1790 actively publishing climate scientists the figures may move to 95%, or even 90%; but they are just as likely to stay at 97%. An overwhelming majority. If the figure was 67%, then the sample size would be an issue.

Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and Martinez [2007].

It was not a random selection of qualified scientists,

Keane and Martinez are the publishers of the American Directory of Geoscience Departments which means almost every earth scientist in America is listed. Sure there are some who missed publication date etc, but that's like saying "I used the white pages as my population" if I wanted to research the general public. Was 10,257 too small a sample? Was a 30.7% response rate too high? Or too low?

It was not a statistically neutral questionaire

"When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?"

How so? What would you have preferred?

"and it was a very unscientific method that produced the results.

What is unscientific about an online survey? Scientists use them all the time, and you and I have no knowledge of how the data was analysed, so neither of us can make that claim. However the American Geophysical Union would be very, very unlikely to publish anything that was the least likely to have flawed data.

Come on mate, you can do better than that, I expect flawed reasoning and ignorance about statistical analysis from some of the other halfwits on this thread, but I think you are better that. And I'd just like to remind you that on the 28th you promised me that "I will put up data for at least 2 of these falsifications later this week." I'm keen to see them.

shrub

6th July 2011, 16:59

Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses. Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and Martinez [2007].

I'm going to explain it using a motorcyle analogy because that's how i look at the world.

I want to know whether I should wear ATTGATT, so I decide to do a survey. I use as my sample the 10,257 motorcycle registrations of ChCH, and send them a survey. 3167 of them respond and answer my questions. All of them ride a motorcycle, but some ride a GN125 to work a few times a year, some ride every day, some tour etc, so I break the responses into people that ride under 1000 kms a year, 1000 - 5000 kms, 5-20 and over 20.

72% of the under 1000 km riders think ATTGATT is a good idea
79% of the 1-5k riders think it's agood idea
88% of the 5 - 20k riders
97% of the 20k+ riders

Yes, there are only 79 people in the 20k+ range, but they're pretty serious about riding, so I'll take their opinion more seriously than the under 1k riders. last year the AA did a survey where they asked car drivers whether bikers should wear protective gear and 58% said yes, so I considered that in my decision making.

My jug has boiled, but all we're arguing is whether 97% of the gung ho experts believe in climate change, or whether it is really something else, and arguing over one tiny article because none of you can do any better than pick holes in detail.

Harleys are not authentic American bikes because they have Japanese electrics now.

Ocean1

6th July 2011, 19:39

Witch!! It's a witch!!!

Err, wrong century...

Ummm... Fush!! The fush are all poison!! Don't eat the f...

Ah, decade or two more eh?...

Weather!! The weather's fuckt. We're Doomed, dooooooomed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion/5200586/Global-warming-alarmism

Winston001

7th July 2011, 21:58

Farg? A WITCH you say??

Burn HER Burn Her

NighthawkNZ

12th July 2011, 09:19

It must be global warming sorry climate change... winter is here... frack its cold

puddytat

2nd September 2011, 16:53

Jantar

2nd September 2011, 17:47

Just thought I'd rake over the coals a tad with this ....I know no one who does not accept that it has been Humans that are responsible for the polluted state for the Worlds Oceans which are slowly but surely turning acidic & on the point of "tipping"....not to mention the pollution of freshwater.
So why then, when its commonly accepted that it is us that are responsible for the sorry state of the Oceans that cover 3/4 of the worlds surface that people cant handle the idea or get thier head around that we have had an affect on the Atmosphere.
:scratch:

I don't know of anyone who claims that man doesn't have an effect on the atmosphere. Where the difference lies is in just what that effect is. There are some (getting fewer in munber) who believe that the main effect man has is to cause Global Warming, while others believe that the main effect is to cause acid rain. Then some believe the main effect is to produce vast amounts of soot and sulphides (which have opposite effects to each other).

puddytat

2nd September 2011, 19:46

mashman

3rd September 2011, 09:10

:laugh:Well we must be living on different planets!
It'd be good if we could combine those different beliefs, call it a politically acceptable name & get on with the job of doing something about them....:wait::yawn:
Can anyone come up with something? How about....errr:scratch:ummmm, I know!!How'bout:doh:

"Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy."

damn, not even Obama can do it... (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-halts-controversial-epa-regulation-143731156.html)... the polluters win again, and all to save the economy :facepalm: stoooopid fuckin economy

Woodman

3rd September 2011, 09:23

Like I've said before, its time to start shooting people and blowing shit up.

Yes we will have a big war and lots of people will die, but we have been having wars since day dot and to be honest I can't think of any of them that were for useful causes. Selfish yes but not useful.

Don't panic cause it won't happen so just accept that its been a pretty good ride so far and watch it turn to shit from the sidelines.

mashman

31st March 2014, 12:43

Woohooo... game on (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/22260081/un-warns-of-global-warmings-effects/)

SPman

31st March 2014, 15:43

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) has released the second part of its Fifth Assessment report (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/), focusing on impacts. The report had been widely leaked ahead of its release, and on a global scale predicts war, disease, and famine (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/climate-change-war-disease-and-famine.html). But there's also a regional chapter on Australasia (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap25_FGDall.pdf), which is equally grim reading. Australia gets the worst of it, of course - they will lose the Great Barrier Reef and lose key species no matter what we do - but New Zealand is going to cop it as well, from fire and flood:

o increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand, driven by increasing extreme rainfall although the amount of change remains uncertain; in many locations, continued reliance on increased protection alone would become progressively less feasible [Table 25-1, 25.4.2, Box 25-8, 25.10.3]
[...]
o increased damages to ecosystems and settlements, economic losses and risks to human life from wildfires in most of southern Australia and many parts of New Zealand, driven by rising temperatures and drying trends; local planning mechanisms, building design, early warning systems and public education can assist with adaptation and are being implemented in regions that have experienced major events [25.2, Table 25-1, 25.6.1, 25.7.1, Box 25-6]

The flooding risk will be exacerbated by sea-level rise, which will turn one in 100 year floods into annual events in some regions (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11229566). Which is something you'd expect local councils to be taking into account in their planning rules. Unfortunately, when they try, rich residents take them to court (http://www.3news.co.nz/Residents-dispute-risks-to-coastal-homes/tabid/423/articleID/282765/Default.aspx) to try and protect the value of their soon-to-be worthless homes long enough to flick them on to the next sucker (who will then no doubt take the council to court for failing to warn them of the risk of inundation). I expect it will be a similar story with wildfire risk: people will say "you can't put that on my LIM, because no-one will want to buy my house!" Its the whole story of climate change write small: a slow drift to apocalypse, with any move to prevent or limit it foiled by the selfish and greedy rich.

As for our government, they're basically ruling out doing anything (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/some-nz-centres-may-have-abadoned-climate-scientist-5879454):
"We're not playing God on this. That natural process will determine what happens to adaptation of human beings and other mammals and species," he said.

The New Zealand carbon emissions account for 0.2% worldwide. The Government says it's up to local authorities to do what is needed.

So, they won't try and save our climate, our coast, or even our endangered species (some of which face being wiped out by climate change), because that would be "playing god". Which invites the question: what fucking good are they?
And why are we paying Tim Groser a generous ministerial salary for this portfolio if he is ruling out doing anything at all?

:oi-grr:..........................

mashman

31st March 2014, 16:02

:oi-grr:..........................

Nope, can't be true as it doesn't fit in with the plan. In some dark corner, I'll welcome such disastrous changes with open arms.

NighthawkNZ

31st March 2014, 17:44

Damn Alieums... its all there fault

NighthawkNZ

31st March 2014, 17:50

I/S[/B]}
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) has released the second part of its Fifth Assessment report (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/), focusing on impacts. The report had been widely leaked ahead of its release, and on a global scale predicts war, disease, and famine (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/climate-change-war-disease-and-famine.html). But there's also a regional chapter on Australasia (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap25_FGDall.pdf), which is equally grim reading. Australia gets the worst of it, of course - they will lose the Great Barrier Reef and lose key species no matter what we do - but New Zealand is going to cop it as well, from fire and flood:
o increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand, driven by increasing extreme rainfall although the amount of change remains uncertain; in many locations, continued reliance on increased protection alone would become progressively less feasible [Table 25-1, 25.4.2, Box 25-8, 25.10.3]
[...]
o increased damages to ecosystems and settlements, economic losses and risks to human life from wildfires in most of southern Australia and many parts of New Zealand, driven by rising temperatures and drying trends; local planning mechanisms, building design, early warning systems and public education can assist with adaptation and are being implemented in regions that have experienced major events [25.2, Table 25-1, 25.6.1, 25.7.1, Box 25-6]

The flooding risk will be exacerbated by sea-level rise, which will turn one in 100 year floods into annual events in some regions (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11229566). Which is something you'd expect local councils to be taking into account in their planning rules. Unfortunately, when they try, rich residents take them to court (http://www.3news.co.nz/Residents-dispute-risks-to-coastal-homes/tabid/423/articleID/282765/Default.aspx) to try and protect the value of their soon-to-be worthless homes long enough to flick them on to the next sucker (who will then no doubt take the council to court for failing to warn them of the risk of inundation). I expect it will be a similar story with wildfire risk: people will say "you can't put that on my LIM, because no-one will want to buy my house!" Its the whole story of climate change write small: a slow drift to apocalypse, with any move to prevent or limit it foiled by the selfish and greedy rich.

increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure ... blah blah blah

Stop building settlements on flood plains and old river beds would be a good start...

Jantar

31st March 2014, 18:26

mashman

31st March 2014, 18:57

As part of the literature review for my PHD my climate advisor suggested I read the IPCC report and then the papers it references. I have had an advance copy for a couple of weeks, and am still working through the literature. However the language and threats raised in the WGII report do not reflect what the scientific papers are saying.

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

What are the scientific papers saying then?

puddytat

31st March 2014, 19:01

increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure ... blah blah blah

Stop building settlements on flood plains and old river beds would be a good start...

Stop rebuilding them too.....

Ocean1

31st March 2014, 19:03

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

You can't be right, it doesn't fit with mushbrains' plan.

And he was SO looking forward to the end of the world.

Jantar

31st March 2014, 19:32

OK, some examples. The report claims that a further "increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century" is to be expected. The papers say that no extinctions can be blamed on climate change to date, and that the data is too sparse to make any predictions going forward. (Kinzelbach, 2012).

Jantar

31st March 2014, 19:38

the WG1 report was unable to put a number on climate sensitivity, but gave a range from 1.5 - 4.5, and could be as low as 1.2 (the number I've always gone with). This would mean a temperature rise of only 1 - 1.5 C by 2100 from pre industrial times.

the WGII report is using temperature rises of 1.5 to 2.5 C and basing the claims of ocean pH on a CO2 conc of
5000 ppm.

I'm still reading and I've got another 187 papers to go at around 1 hour per paper.

Jantar

31st March 2014, 19:42

BoristheBiter

31st March 2014, 19:47

mashman

31st March 2014, 20:26

The other side

Thanks for that. So is it out and out lies or just the language that is being used? We're not tuning out at all, we're merely looking for the truth. Nigh on impossible given the array of reports and papers and lack of confirmable knowledge that is put forwards as truth. I think a lot of people are looking at it from the point of view that if the caps melt, sea levels will rise. It is possible. When, is only important if we intend to do anything about it, which we don't look to be doing... so it doesn't help when the experts say we don't know and the propaganda machine pumps out what is labelled as alarmist by any side. As "we" are not on any given side "we" are left to fill in the blanks. Given that blank padding we deal with what we know i.e. is a thing possible, yes, it is probable, maybe, are we doing anything about it, no, should we just in case, yes.

What are we expected to do? Wait until there is data available?

SPman

31st March 2014, 20:54

Oh, another minor point:

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

◾Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/27/un-climate-author-withdraws-damn-obvious-warmer-te/

One of the 70 authors of a draft UN report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was "alarmist" about the threat.

Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on 31 March.
"The drafts became too alarmist," the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report.
But he acknowledged some other authors "strongly disagree with me".

.......

Another expert criticised Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits.
"Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits from warming. And it's the one he wrote," said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Unit on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/ipcc-author-climate-report-alarmist

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/31/ipcc-warns-climate-change-risks

scrivy

31st March 2014, 21:21

Watched this the other week..... interesting....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

carbonhed

31st March 2014, 21:28

One of the 70 authors of a draft UN report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was "alarmist" about the threat.

Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on 31 March.
"The drafts became too alarmist," the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report.
But he acknowledged some other authors "strongly disagree with me".

.......

Another expert criticised Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits.
"Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits from warming. And it's the one he wrote," said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Unit on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/ipcc-author-climate-report-alarmist

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/31/ipcc-warns-climate-change-risks

Bob Ward? You're really quoting Bob Ward???

You know how much you hate Cameron Slater aka Whaleoil? Bob Ward is the alarmist camps Whaleoil... except that he's paid to be Whaleoil.

The "Summary for Policymakers" is where the science gets put through the blender of politics... read the science... like Jantar does.

Jantar

31st March 2014, 21:59

... I think a lot of people are looking at it from the point of view that if the caps melt, sea levels will rise. It is possible. ....
What are we expected to do? Wait until there is data available?There is data available already. Its how that data is used or abused that is part of the problem.

Have a look at these Antarctic temperatures http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/climate_graph/vostok_south_pole_mcmurdo.htm

And these Arctic ones Here http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/weather_arctic.html or here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The DMI record is for the polar sea ice region, and if sea ice melts the sea levels will not change. For the polar caps to even start melting the average global temperature will have to increase by at least 30C. At a climate sensitivity of 1.2 that would require a CO2 conc of 280 x 2^25 ppm. As the entire atmosphere is 10^6 ppm it is quite obvious that this is an impossible number to reach.
If global temperatures were to rise enough to cause the polar caps to melt then something other than CO2 conc must be the cause.

cc rider

1st April 2014, 02:19

Had a shit few weeks, so happy to take the blame for global whatever & other stuff

I 'll be over there not giving a rats...

avgas

1st April 2014, 02:23

What global warming? Its nearly April and it just decided to snow over here randomly.
I think climate change is the better term. The only global warming happening is when all the greenies smoke a big doob.

cc rider

1st April 2014, 02:25

There's a dooby??? :blink:

avgas

1st April 2014, 03:34

There's a dooby??? :blink:
Was. Was a dooby. Now we have global warming. Talk about a come-down.

Ocean1

1st April 2014, 07:24

If global temperatures were to rise enough to cause the polar caps to melt then something other than CO2 conc must be the cause.

Not to mention the least of anyone's worries...

puddytat

1st April 2014, 09:41

.
If global temperatures were to rise enough to cause the polar caps to melt then something other than CO2 conc must be the cause.

Methane?
Or the unknown chemicals being discovered over the Antartic?

Or the sudden upsurge of Marijuana emissions in the U.S?

scrivy

1st April 2014, 09:53

Methane?
Or the unknown chemicals being discovered over the Antartic?

Is it this???
http://www.infowars.com/methane-spewing-microbe-blamed-in-earths-worst-mass-extinction/

:pinch:

puddytat

1st April 2014, 10:14

Is it this???
http://www.infowars.com/methane-spewing-microbe-blamed-in-earths-worst-mass-extinction/

:pinch:

Yeah.....as well as these 295525

Studies in Germany show that a lactating cow can produce up to 700 litres a day...methane that is.

Jantar

1st April 2014, 10:51

Methane?
Or the unknown chemicals being discovered over the Antartic?

Or the sudden upsurge of Marijuana emissions in the U.S?

Why chemical at all?
How about the cause being that big yellow thing in the sky?
Or oceanic upwelling?
Or NightHawk's "Alieums"

Any of these would also explain the lack of warming this millennium, and the cooling we are currently experiencing.

mashman

1st April 2014, 11:10

Why chemical at all?
How about the cause being that big yellow thing in the sky?
Or oceanic upwelling?
Or NightHawk's "Alieums"

Any of these would also explain the lack of warming this millennium, and the cooling we are currently experiencing.

That was going to be my reply to you... add pole shift as it could give the required temperature difference you speak of in order to melt the caps. I have become a fan of this theory as it would explain why some areas are getting colder and the ice-sheets are melting. As it's all theory, it's moot, but there are, as you highlight, other way that these things can happen. We ain't ready and we're looking towards you guys to provide solid evidence. Utterly shit position to be in, I don't envy you, but our politicians don't seem to be giving a shit, so there's nowhere else for us to go.

Swoop

1st April 2014, 11:29

We should be thanking, and encouraging, the japs to keep dragging whales out of the oceans.
Think of the quantity of water they displace. By hauling them out of the ocean they are saving low-lying pacific islands from the dangers of rising sea levels.

"Thank you" japan. (now fuck off and clean up all that radioactive shit)

SPman

1st April 2014, 16:39

Jantar

1st April 2014, 17:29

The sub surface temperature of the eastern Pacific Ocean is measuring an 'astounding' six degrees warmer than normal for this time of year.
A team of US atmospheric scientists says that points to a major El Nino event forming to rival the record event nearly 20 years ago.
"The only time that (the six-degree warming) has ever happened before, this time of the year, was in that March of 1997 event..."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2<wbr>014-03-24/strong-el-nino/5340708 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/strong-el-nino/5340708)

Won't need the polar ice to melt in the Antarctic - just let it melt at the slip points and it'll slide into the sea.

The sub surface temperature anomaly is irrelevant for forcing an el Nino event unless it is higher than the surface temperature SST. Once the surface temperature also climbs in the Eastern Pacific then an El Nino is almost certain.

At this time the SST is around normal, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif

But most forecast models are predicting an El Nino to form http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

It is not the El Nino that drives polar SST, but the Antarctic Oscillation. The South Pacific Convergence zone will need to move a long way pole wards before that will be affected.

I just had a look at the sub surface temps. Are you sure that 6 degrees is in C and not F? http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC003.gif?1297119137

Ocean1

1st April 2014, 20:05

Good read.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/muting-the-alarm-on-climate-change.aspx

scrivy

2nd April 2014, 08:54

Yeah, well, so, ok, um, er, I guess.....
http://www.infowars.com/ipccs-doom-and-gloom-global-warming-apocalypse-is-political-theater-not-real-science/

carbonhed

2nd April 2014, 09:08

"The only time that (the six-degree warming) has ever happened before, this time of the year, was in that March of 1997 event..."

Kind of makes you wonder how long we've had accurate measurements of the sub surface temperature of the Eastern Pacific Ocean?

mashman

2nd April 2014, 12:09

Good read.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/muting-the-alarm-on-climate-change.aspx

And you tell me not to post up cartoons.

carbonhed

2nd April 2014, 13:46

And you tell me not to post up cartoons.

Which bits are wrong?

Edbear

2nd April 2014, 15:42

Which bits are wrong?

It's one man's opinion. As with all such it's a case of Newton's Third Law.

mashman

2nd April 2014, 16:01

Which bits are wrong?

I didn't say wrong, I said cartoon. But Ed's description fits.

Ocean1

2nd April 2014, 20:44

And you tell me not to post up cartoons.

Actually I'd rather you didn't bother posting at all, but if you must darken our door then cartoons are at least more coherent than your own home made drivel.

Is a pity `The Rational Optimist: How prosperity evolves' don't have pictures, you could have improved yourself by reading it. You'd really enjoy it, it demonstrates that everything you believe is wrong.

As if anyone really wanted to know...

bogan

2nd April 2014, 21:31

Actually I'd rather you didn't bother posting at all, but if you must darken our door then cartoons are at least more coherent than your own home made drivel.

Is a pity `The Rational Optimist: How prosperity evolves' don't have pictures, you could have improved yourself by reading it. You'd really enjoy it, it demonstrates that everything you believe is wrong.

As if anyone really wanted to know...

I especially like the bit where he used transparent figures to back up his points, certanily not just one man's opinion. Given the calibre of counter-arguments, I think it time to fire up the old 2T :D

mashman

2nd April 2014, 21:42

Actually I'd rather you didn't bother posting at all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5GOH2CO1k

mashman

2nd April 2014, 21:42

I especially like the bit where he used transparent figures to back up his points, certanily not just one man's opinion. Given the calibre of counter-arguments, I think it time to fire up the old 2T :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaWsIzWZFr0&feature=kp

hayd3n

2nd April 2014, 22:23

so no rush on building the ARK?

jonbuoy

2nd April 2014, 22:27

so no rush on building the ARK?

According to chicken licken on the news this morning Ebola is going to get us first.

Jantar

3rd April 2014, 06:19

Kind of makes you wonder how long we've had accurate measurements of the sub surface temperature of the Eastern Pacific Ocean?
Argo deployments began in 2000 . http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ So any temperature claims for prior to that are results of estimation and modelling based on occasional submarine records.

R650R

21st April 2014, 08:42

If only one had the cash to get in on the wind turbine scam...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/windfarm-owners-were-paid-10m-not-to-produce-energy-30200656.html

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 09:39

If only one had the cash to get in on the wind turbine scam...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/windfarm-owners-were-paid-10m-not-to-produce-energy-30200656.html

It's not a scam so much as the real cost of operating a power generating asset that depends on an irregular weather phenomenon in a market where there's highly irregular demand for it's product. If the cost of building them was accounted for simply from kwh sold the price wouldn't be commercially acceptable.

Blame whatever green flavoured policy changes that supported the implementation of the technology in the first place, windmills only make cheap power in books that have been fiddled with.

mashman

21st April 2014, 10:11

If only one had the cash to get in on the wind turbine scam...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/windfarm-owners-were-paid-10m-not-to-produce-energy-30200656.html

Why not invest in storage solutions instead of paying companies to switch shit off? Typical human effort... half arsed with money being the driving factor.

Jantar

21st April 2014, 11:20

..... windmills only make cheap power in books that have been fiddled with.

Why not invest in storage solutions instead of paying companies to switch shit off? Typical human effort... half arsed with money being the driving factor.
Both of you are correct. Wind power is a cheap way to generate electrical energy, at times when it isn't needed, but can't generate at times that it is needed. The solution is storage, in the the form of pumped storage hydro stations. When the wind blows and excess electricity is being generated, water is pumped from a lower lake to a higher lake (eg Roxburgh to Onslow). When the wind doesn't blow and electricity is needed the water is allowed to flow from the higher lake to a lower one (eg Onslow to Roxburgh).

At present there are no pumped storage hydro schemes in New Zealand, although a PhD thesis is being researched on one right now by Mohammed Majeed of Waikato university. The Onslow pumped storage scheme, if it were to proceed, would cost around $3 billion and allow for up to 1200 MW of additional wind generation in New Zealand, along with providing dry year security with up to 3 times the current maximum staorage available in New Zealand.

Trouble is, now that the electricity companies have been split up, none of them are big enough to engage in a project of that size that would provide a long term benefit, but intermittent and unplannable returns in the short term.

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 11:56

The solution is storage, in the the form of pumped storage hydro stations.

It's such an obviously good strategy eh? And reasonably efficient.

Trouble is, now that the electricity companies have been split up, none of them are big enough to engage in a project of that size that would provide a long term benefit, but intermittent and unplannable returns in the short term.

Yeah, bad move that. Inserting a whole new layer in the supply chain cost us more immediately, fragmenting the generating resource will cost us more in the long run.

Nationalise the lot? :rolleyes:

mashman

21st April 2014, 11:57

Both of you are correct. Wind power is a cheap way to generate electrical energy, at times when it isn't needed, but can't generate at times that it is needed. The solution is storage, in the the form of pumped storage hydro stations. When the wind blows and excess electricity is being generated, water is pumped from a lower lake to a higher lake (eg Roxburgh to Onslow). When the wind doesn't blow and electricity is needed the water is allowed to flow from the higher lake to a lower one (eg Onslow to Roxburgh).

At present there are no pumped storage hydro schemes in New Zealand, although a PhD thesis is being researched on one right now by Mohammed Majeed of Waikato university. The Onslow pumped storage scheme, if it were to proceed, would cost around $3 billion and allow for up to 1200 MW of additional wind generation in New Zealand, along with providing dry year security with up to 3 times the current maximum staorage available in New Zealand.

Trouble is, now that the electricity companies have been split up, none of them are big enough to engage in a project of that size that would provide a long term benefit, but intermittent and unplannable returns in the short term.

They have a couple in Scotland and they seem to do the trick quite nicely. I was also thinking along the lines of household capacitor banks that may also help lower the load of peak demand? I think we all understand that no single "green" technology can generate all of our power needs and all that seems to be missing is "sensible" storage. Why not do it where the power is needed, at the house. Might be expensive, but surely a better idea than giving electricity companies money for nothing?

R650R

21st April 2014, 12:07

Agree with everyones responses, was just posting for those not aware. There's been other articles on this subject before.
Also even when they are running other gas/coal/hydro stations have to be kept spooled up incase the wind drops/stops to balance the load as they take time to get up to speed.
The problem is this is public money subsidising these things, if they were serious about pollution/emmisions the solution for now would be to put that same money into buying everyone the latest most efficient fridges/washing machines etc.
Its kinda ironic too that all this investment is being made under the guise of climate change, wont that mean the winds could change...
Another reason behind these things being shutdown so often is to make their lifespan look economically feasible, bit like nanas car that only goes out on weekends instead of a taxi running 24/7 that's shagged after 3 years etc...
Why are we not seeing home units on a smaller affordable scale like what some lifestyle/bach owners have??? the answer it gives away control to the people.

schrodingers cat

21st April 2014, 13:12

There is the arguement that the last thing the world needs is free energy...

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 14:03

Why are we not seeing home units on a smaller affordable scale like what some lifestyle/bach owners have??? the answer it gives away control to the people.

Probably because they can't be made for a price consumers would think was affordable.

As for control: Meh. If you want to stick it to the man stop them supplying domestic meters that can't be run backwards, then that can be fukt generating a bit of their own can sell it back to the retailer. :shifty:

Edbear

21st April 2014, 15:08

Probably because they can't be made for a price consumers would think was affordable.

As for control: Meh. If you want to stick it to the man stop them supplying domestic meters that can't be run backwards, then that can be fukt generating a bit of their own can sell it back to the retailer. :shifty:

IMHO it's a matter of cost - benefit. We have the technology and the products to live independently of the grid and in some areas off the water supply as well. All new homes should have solar power installed with a house design that is naturally efficient. We're on mains gas for heating, hot water and cooking, so having to pay the line charge makes installing solar uneconomic.

What we will probably do whenever the 260lt cylinder dies is install a califont for hot water.

Winston001

21st April 2014, 17:02

Why are we not seeing home units on a smaller affordable scale like what some lifestyle/bach owners have??? the answer it gives away control to the people.

Nah, its got nothing to do with "the man". Parliament and your local power company could care less if you go off the grid. Domestic use is a pain to supply; commercial and industrial power is much easier.

I've mentioned before that friends of mine installed an off-grid electricity system for a crib which is still in place. Originally 12 years ago it was a wind turbine plus deep cycle batteries and some complex electricity inverter thingy. Plus a petrol generator.

There were always problems. Batteries failed, not enough wind, too much wind, generator out of fuel etc.

The biggest problem was actually quite subtle - low level noise from the turbine plus other noise from the propellor tips. Impossible to block out or get away from. After about 8 years they removed the wind turbine and installed a huge solar array mounted on a rotating base so it followed the sun every day of the year. Clever and silent. But not cheap.

I suspect if they'd bitten the bullet at the start and put the poles in to connect to the grid, life would have been much easier and possibly cheaper. But on the other hand they had the satisfaction of doing something different and I admire them for it.

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 18:27

All new homes should have solar power installed with a house design that is naturally efficient.

Yeah, just what we need, more nonsensical building compliance costs.

And of course it's a cost/benefit issue, if the cost of domestic micro-generation was less than a mains feed then it'd be common practice. It's not. At least it's not currently worthwhile, even for those of us with a viable energy source on site.

Edbear

21st April 2014, 18:41

Yeah, just what we need, more nonsensical building compliance costs.

And of course it's a cost/benefit issue, if the cost of domestic micro-generation was less than a mains feed then it'd be common practice. It's not. At least it's not currently worthwhile, even for those of us with a viable energy source on site.

Maybe we can get the figures on the cost? I think that if the solar system is incorporated into the design and cost of building the new home it would be worthwhile?

Of course, maintenance needs to come into play, as for example the home air-con cost doesn't mention having to replace the compressor after five or six years. Like vehicles where I look at dollars per k overall rather than just fuel economy.

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 19:20

Maybe we can get the figures on the cost? I think that if the solar system is incorporated into the design and cost of building the new home it would be worthwhile?

Of course, maintenance needs to come into play, as for example the home air-con cost doesn't mention having to replace the compressor after five or six years. Like vehicles where I look at dollars per k overall rather than just fuel economy.

A solar array lasts maybe 6 years last time I looked, not something you'd want to build into a house as a permanent feature. They're also environmentally dodgy.

Try starting here: http://www.energywise.govt.nz/your-home/generating-your-own-energy/pv

mashman

21st April 2014, 20:08

A solar array lasts maybe 6 years last time I looked, not something you'd want to build into a house as a permanent feature. They're also environmentally dodgy.

Try starting here: http://www.energywise.govt.nz/your-home/generating-your-own-energy/pv

It's 2014, not 1984. Seems that most (that I've just checked) manufacturers are offering 25 years.

It's becoming cheaper coz most of it is coming out of China and in response too many western manufacturers of solar cells are finding it impossible to compete.

oldrider

21st April 2014, 20:11

Nah, its got nothing to do with "the man". Parliament and your local power company could care less if you go off the grid. Domestic use is a pain to supply; commercial and industrial power is much easier.

I've mentioned before that friends of mine installed an off-grid electricity system for a crib which is still in place. Originally 12 years ago it was a wind turbine plus deep cycle batteries and some complex electricity inverter thingy. Plus a petrol generator.

There were always problems. Batteries failed, not enough wind, too much wind, generator out of fuel etc.

The biggest problem was actually quite subtle - low level noise from the turbine plus other noise from the propellor tips. Impossible to block out or get away from. After about 8 years they removed the wind turbine and installed a huge solar array mounted on a rotating base so it followed the sun every day of the year. Clever and silent. But not cheap.

I suspect if they'd bitten the bullet at the start and put the poles in to connect to the grid, life would have been much easier and possibly cheaper. But on the other hand they had the satisfaction of doing something different and I admire them for it.

True! Good post Winston.

Can't match the supply if it goes right by your house but personal satisfaction of DIY and deep pockets can be fun just the same! :blip:

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 20:25

It's 2014, not 1984. Seems that most (that I've just checked) manufacturers are offering 25 years.

It's becoming cheaper coz most of it is coming out of China and in response too many western manufacturers of solar cells are finding it impossible to compete.

While you're there find us a cost per unit eh?

mashman

21st April 2014, 21:28

While you're there find us a cost per unit eh?

I would think that they're worth their weight in gold during a lengthy power outage.

Ocean1

21st April 2014, 21:33

I would think that they're worth their weight in gold during a lengthy power outage.

I was without power all last Fri evening and managed exactly as well as I would have with $20k worth of solar cells.

oneofsix

21st April 2014, 21:36

all that panic over sinking pacific atolls as the sea rise and it turns out they float, kind of :lol:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/9963480/Pacific-atolls-resilient-to-rising-seas-study

mashman

21st April 2014, 22:15

I was without power all last Fri evening and managed exactly as well as I would have with $20k worth of solar cells.

There is something to be said for not having any power... although I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea. All I'd need is enough power to fire up the hair dryer.

SPman

21st April 2014, 22:19

Our 4 Kw system cost around $7000. Now if they can just get the price of Lithium batteries down a bit more......

A solar array lasts maybe 6 years last time I looked, Bloke down the road has panels 22 yrs old which are still working fine - maybe a 5-6% drop on new.

oldrider

21st April 2014, 22:26

Our 4 Kw system cost around $7000. Now if they can just get the price of Lithium batteries down a bit more......

Bloke down the road has panels 22 yrs old which are still working fine - maybe a 5-6% drop on new.

Don't you get substantial subsidies when you buy/install Photovoltaic cells over there? (almost anywhere except NZ, I believe?)

SPman

22nd April 2014, 15:03

Don't you get substantial subsidies when you buy/install Photovoltaic cells over there? (almost anywhere except NZ, I believe?) There are subsidies, not as much now as when we bought our first 1.5kW unit, 4 yrs ago. Also, panel and inverter costs have dropped a lot. The subsidies are probably responsible for the one and a half million households that have installed solar over here in the last 5 yrs - and most of them are middle and lower income households. It's certainly hit the power companies peak spot price gouging, and they don't like it!

The Mad Monk is intent on disposing of all subsidies and incentives for renewables over here - he's convinced coal is the way forward.......:laugh:

Ocean1

22nd April 2014, 19:29

Our 4 Kw system cost around $7000. Now if they can just get the price of Lithium batteries down a bit more......

Bloke down the road has panels 22 yrs old which are still working fine - maybe a 5-6% drop on new.

Aye, a friend in Perth paid $8k for his 5Kw device a year ago.

And the same rig here at the time cost $18k.

Now, how much of that difference is subsidy and how much is the usual doubling of the price of anything headed for NZ I don't know.

I do know subsidies here don't work like they do there. When the subsidised insulation scheme was introduced here it was limited to material supplied through "licenced" installers. At which point the material cost for everyone else rose by precisely the value of the subsidy, and the price of the installation by the licenced installer was exactly the same as doing it yourself had been the year before. In short the licence holders pocketed the subsidy.

My sister, back in t' UK is getting panels fitted (at some point soon) when the new roof goes on and I believe that they're all but free.

You mean the price of the panels is paid by someone else.