The psychology of climate change

[wayneL]

well I invite anyone - Wayne, Calliope included - to put all your money into the insurance game - and make NO ADJUSTMENT whatsoever for
rising temperatures and bushfire threat (some relevant areas)
rising sealevels (ditto)
more frequent flooding (ditto).

An absolutely ludicrous argument. Akin to me inviting you to sell waterfront blocks in Penrith. Get real.

Of course drought effects are partly "insured" by the Aussie taxpayer, who picks up the tab for drought relief - not that I don't think the bushies need and deserve it - just that the cost of rising insurance due to drought is hidden by that system. .

PS Wayne, I'm still waiting for you to confirm that I posted you scientific evidence that the rate of seal level rise has increased from mean of 1.7mm per year ( approx 1900 to 1975 ) to 3mm per year since then. (going from memory here - it's on the "is it ok to jest about GW" thread - as you will recall). Jason 1 and Jason 2 - all seriously scientific stuff!!

Please read this. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...mm-a-year-uc-sea-level-data-says-differently/

 

[Knobby22]

It is not extremist to be suspicious of a one world government. That is a rather repulsive straw man argument there Knobby.

As far as fixing one problem, the problem is one that is low on the agenda.

For instance building Priuses purportedly addresses carbon, but creates far more obnoxious environmental problems. Same with corn ethanol, etc etc

co2 is a minor issue. Let's fix real problems.

It will be a government that consists of a stronger UN. A sort of Commonwealth. The world would be better off if the UN had teeth.

And that Prius argument is furphy pushed by certain interest groups.
The Prius is greener than a Hummer in all stages of its lifecycle.
Refer. http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...3IZT01Fu7ICd4AtxVzpbDHPFAPqE1CCO62M2naFfFVGw&

I have seen this argument countermanded by a different sources worldwide.

 

[basilio]

The international emissions trading scheme is conceived as a world wide approach to tackling climate change. The theory (and reality) is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a monumental task which requires every country to pull its weight.

The scheme is actually one developed through the business world. In theory it says that businesses will find the most economical way to reduce carbon emissions and that an international ETS scheme will enable this.

I scouted the net for a “simple to understand” explanation of how the scheme is suppose to work and the Australian Conservation foundation seemed to have the cleanest version . http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1817

Will it work and how will Australia be affected ? As I see it the reality of my previous premise, that the world is broadly living a lie in it’s approach to expecting never ending growth, means that no approach will work. One can already see the gaming approaches by financial institutions with illusionary carbon savings and creative accounting. On a national level the “negotiations” over how we slice and dice quotas, supervise them and help each other make this work are downright ugly . I have posted a reference to one insight into the process

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009

So what will work ? It sounds idealistic and naïve but perhaps the united actions of millions of people to lead by example and force business and governments to take the issue seriously may be the most effective way. The Berlin Wall fell to people power; The corrupt Philippines government probably a number of other institutions. Interestingly enough there is a grass roots program going through the UK at the moment called 10/10. It asks people and institutions to reduce their greenhouse gase by 10% in 2010 as a first step and public example of what is required to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. Worth a look
http://www.1010uk.org/1010/what_is_1010

 

[wayneL]

It will be a government that consists of a stronger UN. A sort of Commonwealth. The world would be better off if the UN had

OK that is better wording. Of course I disagree, but that's your opinion.

Re Prius - I will look into this, but I doubt it would fair very well against a comparable conventional 4 cylinder car.

 

[Knobby22]

OK that is better wording. Of course I disagree, but that's your opinion.

Re Prius - I will look into this, but I doubt it would fair very well against a comparable conventional 4 cylinder car.

I'll give you that. I believe the new fiat, lightweight with a diesal engine beats the Prius.

 

[Calliope]

I scouted the net for a “simple to understand” explanation of how the scheme is suppose to work and the Australian Conservation foundation seemed to have the cleanest version .

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1817

Ah.There's the rub.

Over time a good carbon trading scheme with strong national caps can help Australia to become a world leader in tackling climate change with a booming clean energy economy. CSIRO research shows that strong action on climate change will see three million new green collar jobs.

The sceptic interpretation of this little gem is that it would make our Kevin a world leader on "tackling climate change." Obama has already allowed him to assume this role in Singapore and in the absence of Obama he will take over in Copenhagen. It's all about Rudd's ambition to be a world statesman, looked up to by all leaders.

 

[basilio]

Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?

Wayne L and others note that the real problems of the world lie in the North Pacific garbage vortex and hundreds of similar issue. To this I would add that the most critical immediate problem is our worlds dependence on fossil fuels when

1) The CO2 emissions and other pollutions from fossil fuels are fouling our earth
2) Every piece of evidence is telling us we have almost peaked in our production of oil and that much of our current industrial society simply won’t function within a decade with the precipitous decline of this energy source.

I agree that focusing solely on reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions is too limited. In fact the range of problems is so big and interrelated it will require unprecedented clever, co-operative actions to tackle pollution and failing energy resources and global warming and land degradation and so on. When the boat has so many holes you can’t simply fix a couple and expect to sail on.

But it comes back to the first question we have to acknowledge
“Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?”

I have framed it this way because as I see it almost every “solution” attempts to argue the economic costs of tackling the issue,s or suggest there are great business opportunities if we go in a particular direction. With that profit driven framework I just can’t see how we can effectively tackle the issues.

As I see it the goal and prize in this case is simple survival - not making the next million dollars.. Keeping the world somewhat habitable, allowing as much of the ecosystem to survive as we can manage, creating a sustainable niche in the system for humankind. Our current perpetual growth paradigm cannot achieve this goal. Our refusal to acknowledge this fact is a death sentence.

 

[basilio]

Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?

 

[2020hindsight]

so wayne - I post CSIRO evidence that Jason 1 & 2 are monoitoring 3mm per year sea level rise - we're talking NASA et al here - orbiting satellites that can plot this superaccurately ; and you counter with a challenge.

I still prefer the attitude you held a year or two back. Much more consistent with what most would call "a sensible risk-averse approach"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

basilio,

I would add that the most critical immediate problem is our worlds dependence on fossil fuels when

Do you drive a car Basilio?

 

[Julia]

2020, unless I've missed it (quite possible given the now multiple threads relating to climate change and the ETS), you haven't explained to us exactly how the ETS will work, how it will reduce CO2, and how global climate will be affected if Australia is the only country with such a scheme.

 

[2020hindsight]

thousands of articles , papers, powerpoint presentations, etc on the IPCC website - one there (can't find it immediately) that not only shows the rate of 3mm per year now as against half that 60 years or so ago - but shows the best estimate of the relative contributing causes, eg thermal expansion of the oceans ( and they are getting warmer you know) - as well as the runoff from melting glaciers etc.

PS you know, I was speaking to a bloke from Sweden yesterday (well about 40 year old) - he measures ice depth etc (amongst other environmental science stuff).

THey used to be able to drive across the northern end of the sea between Sweden and Finland (somewhere there) - used to be 4 feet thick .

these days even in mid-winter - there is frequently no ice at all

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, unless I've missed it (quite possible given the now multiple threads relating to climate change and the ETS), you haven't explained to us exactly how the ETS will work, how it will reduce CO2, and how global climate will be affected if Australia is the only country with such a scheme.

Julia
and unless I've missed it, you haven't acknowledged that there's a problem. - and a serious one. Sorry gotta run. work calls.

 

[Agentm]

so wayne - I post CSIRO evidence that Jason 1 & 2 are monoitoring 3mm per year sea level rise - we're talking NASA et al here - orbiting satellites that can plot this superaccurately ; and you counter with a challenge.

I still prefer the attitude you held a year or two back. Much more consistent with what most would call "a sensible risk-averse approach"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853

lol

in some regions the sea levels are falling. others its increasing..

overall, its been increasing for some time through the natural global warming cycle.. theres nil connection to carbon..

as for superaccurate readings from space..


doubt it..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY


the whole plot of the global warming fairytale is propaganda..





http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/save_the_children_from_global.html


where is the connection of carbon causing a rise in sea level??

 

[wayneL]

thousands of articles , papers, powerpoint presentations, etc on the IPCC website - one there (can't find it immediately) that not only shows the rate of 3mm per year now as against half that 60 years or so ago - but shows the best estimate of the relative contributing causes, eg thermal expansion of the oceans ( and they are getting warmer you know) - as well as the runoff from melting glaciers etc.

PS you know, I was speaking to a bloke from Sweden yesterday (well about 40 year old) - he measures ice depth etc (amongst other environmental science stuff).

THey used to be able to drive across the northern end of the sea between Sweden and Finland (somewhere there) - used to be 4 feet thick .

these days even in mid-winter - there is frequently no ice at all

You still can't seem to separate climate change and its relationship to co2.

We all accept that climate changes. The link to co2, and to what extent, compared to other anthropogenic and natural factors, is what is in dispute.

Read Pielke et al for scientific opinion here.

My position is well known and need not be repeated again... misrepresent that, or anyone else's views at your peril.

 

[2020hindsight]

lol

1. in some regions the sea levels are falling. others its increasing..

2. overall, its been increasing for some time through the natural global warming cycle.. theres nil connection to carbon..


3. as for superaccurate readings from space.. doubt it..

4. the whole plot of the global warming fairytale is propaganda..

5. where is the connection of carbon causing a rise in sea level??

I could argue with you ageo - or ask you to present proof that "there is no connection between co2 and sea level", or"the whole plot is a fairy tale"
but I won't bother.

I would be wasting my breath - just as you are wasting your breath posting this stuff to me. I'm off to read some more science.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I'm off to read some more science.

That is the problem with many warmeners, they read science, and don't do it.

My sticking my head out the window and reporting on Townsville weather is scientific data collection.

Your trawling of the web for studies supporting your theories is not.

I dare you to do a meta analysis of the data in favour of your argument.

gg

 

[noco]

I often read where ALARMIST are quoting rising sea levels on some of the Pacific Islands.

While many of these islands are on what they call the RING OF FIRE embracing Indonesia, New Guinea through various Pacific Islands to New Zealand, the sesmic disturbance of EARTH QUAKES and VOLCANIC ACTIVITIES must be quite relavent.

If for instances the Earth's plates move against each other, away from each other or even side ways, there has to be some variation in the height of those tiny islands due to subsidence created by the movement of those plates. The void has to be filled and the islands may be sacrificed.

So could it be possible that the ALARMIST are using Climate Change,caused by CO2 emissions, to fake rising sea levels in certain parts of the world instead of considering the fact that these islands may be sinking due to sesmic disturbance?

 

[Smurf1976]

It will be the first step. If we can fix one problem, then we can fix others. Nations acting together for the common good can only be a good thing.

Probable attempts to reduce CO2 emissions directly lead to other forms of environmental damage.

Examples: nuclear energy, recycling isn't viable in terms of CO2 so would likely be dropped, switch from petrol to diesel with greater non-CO2 emissions, large scale hydro and wind energy construction, production and use of biofuels etc.

 

[Smurf1976]

2) Every piece of evidence is telling us we have almost peaked in our production of oil and that much of our current industrial society simply won’t function within a decade with the precipitous decline of this energy source.

Strongly agreed there and I think CO2 is the wrong focus largely for that reason. It's rather frightening when you look at what's going on with oil and natural gas behind the scense - how much we have, where it is, how much we use, which reserves are being used up first. It leads the West down a very predictable path of outright war in my opinion.

Agreed with cutting fossil fuel use as a worthwhile objective. But I'd start with oil and gas first, leaving coal untill last since at least there's plenty of it and it won't likely start a war anytime soon. That the West is marching toward outright dependence on Middle East and Russian oil and gas truly scares me...