The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Maybe a Norway style model would be more acceptable?zzzz wrote:Good
Farva wrote:Why?zzzz wrote:Good
Reckon thats the best solution. But we need a solution.zzzz wrote:Farva wrote:Why?zzzz wrote:Good
Price the external costs of carbon. Impose a carbon tax based on that price. Then step the fudge away.
What would convince you?CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.
I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.
I'm not going to argue science with professors etc. But this bloke was a climate change skeptic then goes out to do a study that changed his mind. My question is, did he become a skeptic out of thin air? Did he not investigate before taking a position? Surely as a scientist he would've had to research before taking such a strong position.penguin wrote:I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
Look at who you are addressing, its a waste of timeNolanator wrote:Just because you can't see it happening almost instantly doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
Look at the research and the numbers. It's a fact.
You could argue that skepticism should be the default position of a good scientist - for him he thought that not all possible explanations/factors involved had been explored, so when he had the chance to do a comprehensive study, he set about rectifying that...and was able to satisfy his doubts, bringing him to agreement with his peers. You'd have to look into his work further to get details.CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not going to argue science with professors etc. But this bloke was a climate change skeptic then goes out to do a study that changed his mind. My question is, did he become a skeptic out of thin air? Did he not investigate before taking a position? Surely as a scientist he would've had to research before taking such a strong position.penguin wrote:I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
In his interview he didn't address the difference from his previous position. It seemed like it's the first study he did on the subject. Nice curve fits in with CO levels rising though CO levels had been high in previous periods in earth's history not included in the study.
Bullshit Australia is still in doubt?guy smiley wrote:. Australia’s still in drought you f**king stupid twat. Half of your PI homelands are under direct threat.CrazyIslander wrote:Since the ice age the climate has bern getting warmer fir thousands of years. 10 yrs ago in Australia we were in a middle of a drought and it looked pretty grim (as they wanted us to believe). States started building desalination plants to prepare for the worse etc. Now it's a distant memory, rivers are flowing and plants blooming.
I believe in environmental conservation but I'm not driven for fear of climate change - if it happens it's the natural environment rather than humans.
This folks, is what happens when stupid thinks it can troll.
Have a look at the earths dashboard. See if there are any red lights:CrazyIslander wrote:If I'm asked on the spot, I will have to take the opinions of the experts and that would be that. But I won't take part in the hysteria. After all if I had taken Muller's advise to heart 10 yrs ago I might gone out and kill some climate change activitists, only to find out later he has changed his mind.
If they are correct in their findings then what you are hearing is not hysterical - it is a proportional response to the scale of the challenge ahead of us. If you accept the science then it is hard to overstate how dramatic the problem is.CrazyIslander wrote:If I'm asked on the spot, I will have to take the opinions of the experts and that would be that. But I won't take part in the hysteria. After all if I had taken Muller's advise to heart 10 yrs ago I might gone out and kill some climate change activitists, only to find out later he has changed his mind.
The variance is in a severity is essentially irrelevant. And we are clearly already experincing man made climate change problems within our lifetimes, which was what was predicted from the start.CrazyIslander wrote:I take your point but not buying into the hysteria. The reason being, if you go back 15 years ago and go through the various scientific arguments then the doom should've already been upon us. Perhaps, toning down the predictions might be a way to convince the undecided.
The point is they all predicted an upward trajectory, sharply in both temperature and CO2. That should have been enough.
Sawyer, 1973
One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity – how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels – of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.
Unlike the other projections examined in this article, Sawyer did not provide an estimated warming for each year, just an expected 2000 value. His warming estimate of 0.6C was nearly spot on – the observed warming over that period was between 0.51C and 0.56C. He overestimated the year 2000’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations, however, assuming that they would be 375-400ppm – compared to the actual value of 370ppm.
CrazyIslander wrote:I take your point but not buying into the hysteria. The reasob being, if you go back 15 years ago and go through the various scientific arguments then the doom should've already been upon us. Perhaps, toning down the predictions might be a way to convince the undecided.
Science is not there to win you over - it is there to present the data, not as you want to see it, but as it is. If you think it is hysterical then that is about you, and there is little more to say.Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Seems you were wrong on that one, as in so much that you post. It is very possible that humans influenced the climate in Australia.CrazyIslander wrote:I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.
5 Conclusions
The overall conclusion that emerges from this model study is that changes in vegetation
through Aboriginal burning practices could have impacted on the regional hydrological
cycle of northern Australia, since the occupation of the continent some
15 50 000 yr ago. The climate changes evident in the model results point to particularly
pronounced changes during the early/pre-monsoon months. During the peak
monsoon, the large scale hemispheric-interhemispheric land/ocean thermodynamicdynamic
controls overwhelmed the more regional scale biophysical changes. From the
results it is also clear that the northern Australian hydroclimate responses to vegetation
20 are not directly mirrored by other monsoon regions, prompting a clear need for further
explorations of the reasons for the monsoon region-specific response to vegetation
changes. In this it may be worthwhile to remember that modeling studies are modeldependent
and there is a clear need for more observed vegetation feedback benchmark
studies, in which palaeoecological work can play a major role. Given projected
25 changes in climate of the low latitude monsoon regions our findings carry implications
for future climates. With a changing climate over the monsoon regions provoking a vegetation
response, feedbacks will be set-up which may project the regional climates into
other climate trajectories. In closing, we draw attention to the wider implications of our
findings, emphasising the long term history of vegetation clearing, as evidenced by the
archaeological record. And draw attention to the likelihood that vegetation modifications
over historical-prehistoric time scales, may well have brought about stronger regional to
5 continental scale climate-hydrology changes than are commonly recognised, changes
which are clearly embraced by the concept of the Anthropocene
Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
bimboman wrote:Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Have temperatures risen by 1.5 degrees then ?
Sorry! Mixed it up with the target. A quick google search ranged from 0.8 to 1 since 1880.Gwenno wrote:bimboman wrote:Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Have temperatures risen by 1.5 degrees then ?
The Man Without Fear wrote:Oh good, bimbo's here to set us straight.
I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
I know that I was suggesting it as well as pumped storage and batteries. It is certainly potentially more flexible than pumped.Nolanator wrote:That's not a generation technology, it's conversion and storage for redistribution away from central generator sites. The hydrogen economy still requires solar, hydro, wind etc to generate power in the first place.Brumbie_Steve wrote:No love for Hydrogen?Farva wrote:Im incredibly optimistic for tye engineering. We have the technologies to solve 50% plus of our carbon emmissions.
Also, anyone suggesting current nuclear technology is the solution is mad. Its just not viable financially.
Solar and wind, mixed with pumped storage, displaced by batteries as the technology arrives, is the future.
I think his point is don't rely on the government to find a solution - decent chance they will back the wrong horse. Let the private sector find the solution(s). Just impose a carbon price/tax as the carrot/stick.Farva wrote:Reckon thats the best solution. But we need a solution.zzzz wrote:
Price the external costs of carbon. Impose a carbon tax based on that price. Then step the fudge away.
I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
SYDNEY researchers are pushing ahead with controversial plans to fertilise the ocean off Australia's coast and use plankton to slow climate change.
The director of the University of Sydney's Ocean Technology Group, Professor Ian Jones, said sprinkling nitrate fertiliser across an area of ocean just 40 kilometres by 40 kilometres would stimulate the growth of carbon-absorbing plankton on a scale big enough to meet the Federal Government's total greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020.
Iron filings in the sea
Dumping piles of iron filings in the sea may not sound the greenest of policies but "seeding" infertile areas of the ocean is known to create plankton "blooms" which take up thousands of tons of carbon dioxide.
The plankton then dies, taking carbon to the bottom of the sea where it can remain for centuries.
In 2012 a team from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany added several tonnes of iron sulphate to the ocean near Antarctica.
The addition of the missing nutrient prompted a massive bloom of phytoplankton to begin growing within a week.
As the phytoplankton began to die after three weeks, they sank towards the ocean floor, taking the carbon they had incorporated with them.
In the journal Nature, the scientists concluded that the carbon is likely to be kept out of the atmosphere for many centuries or longer.
The team claims that ocean iron fertilisation could bury at most one gigatonne of carbon dioxide per year, around an eighth of global emissions.
Interesting. I wonder if they have worked through all the flow on effects? Sounds a lot like introducing cats to catch the rats. Do you then have a wild cat problem?_fatprop wrote:I think some type of outside the box thinking like this will work out a solution
here are two of many being looked at
SYDNEY researchers are pushing ahead with controversial plans to fertilise the ocean off Australia's coast and use plankton to slow climate change.
The director of the University of Sydney's Ocean Technology Group, Professor Ian Jones, said sprinkling nitrate fertiliser across an area of ocean just 40 kilometres by 40 kilometres would stimulate the growth of carbon-absorbing plankton on a scale big enough to meet the Federal Government's total greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020.Iron filings in the sea
Dumping piles of iron filings in the sea may not sound the greenest of policies but "seeding" infertile areas of the ocean is known to create plankton "blooms" which take up thousands of tons of carbon dioxide.
The plankton then dies, taking carbon to the bottom of the sea where it can remain for centuries.
In 2012 a team from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany added several tonnes of iron sulphate to the ocean near Antarctica.
The addition of the missing nutrient prompted a massive bloom of phytoplankton to begin growing within a week.
As the phytoplankton began to die after three weeks, they sank towards the ocean floor, taking the carbon they had incorporated with them.
In the journal Nature, the scientists concluded that the carbon is likely to be kept out of the atmosphere for many centuries or longer.
The team claims that ocean iron fertilisation could bury at most one gigatonne of carbon dioxide per year, around an eighth of global emissions.
No, its get your own house in order before you start telling others to do the same._fatprop wrote:No, our 1% is the issue
More likely to be rubbish than not.Jeff the Bear wrote:I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
No it hasn’t, that bullshit. The “stall” relies on taking one particular year (1998) as the starting point and the stats don’t work if you use the following year. Logically if it’s been stalled since 1998, it’s also been stalled since 1999, or 2000. If you can show me a statistical analysis with those as the starting dates, I’ll be astonished, because it doesn’t it exist.Sonny Blount wrote:More likely to be rubbish than not.Jeff the Bear wrote:I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:
Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.
Biffer29 wrote:No it hasn’t, that bullshit. The “stall” relies on taking one particular year (1998) as the starting point and the stats don’t work if you use the following year. Logically if it’s been stalled since 1998, it’s also been stalled since 1999, or 2000. If you can show me a statistical analysis with those as the starting dates, I’ll be astonished, because it doesn’t it exist.Sonny Blount wrote:More likely to be rubbish than not.Jeff the Bear wrote:I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:
Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.
You do realise a one pixel change on that graph corresponds to about 2000 yearsSonny Blount wrote:More likely to be rubbish than not.Jeff the Bear wrote:I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:
Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.
and?deadduck wrote:You do realise a one pixel change on that graph corresponds to about 2000 yearsSonny Blount wrote:More likely to be rubbish than not.Jeff the Bear wrote:I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.Gwenno wrote:I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?Gwenno wrote:Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.
Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:
Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.