I'm thoroughly enjoying the debate underway on The Standard. Here are some examples of clear thinkers and their descriptions of what's happening and why. Beats the nonsense we read from the deniers who pen letters to the Southland Times, by a country mile!
"Who said that any science was ‘settled’. The only people who ever seem to say that are (like you?) those who aren’t that interested in actual science – usually CCD’s in my experience. What science is about is probabilities not certainties (we tend to leave the latter to those who require no evidence and instead just have faith) of the relationship of a theory reflecting future realities."
"Good link on same subject comments particularly good:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/25
“This isn’t just about polar bears and Arctic ecosystems. The ice cap (i.e. the equator-to-pole temperature gradient) is the fundamental driver of Earth’s air and water currents. Take away the ice cap, and you get a climate regime for the northern hemisphere like none of the past three million years.
Mainly because of disappearing sea ice, the Arctic has been warming 3 or 4 times more quickly than the global average – this is called Arctic amplification. The difference between equatorial and polar temperatures decreases, with dramatic results. Jennifer Francis explains that the persistent weather systems we’ve been seeing in mid latitudes are because of the influence of Arctic amplification on the jet stream – which becomes more meandering and sluggish.
But that’s only what we’re already seeing: the remarkable heat waves, droughts, and floods of the past few years, brought to you courtesy of the melting Arctic. We’re already experiencing dangerous climate changes, and stand at the threshold of extremely dangerous changes – for the whole planet, not just the Arctic.
Kevin Anderson says that effective mitigation will require rethinking the primacy of economic considerations:
“Put bluntly, while the rhetoric of policy is to reduce emissions in line with avoiding dangerous climate change, most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions.”
Monday, August 27, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
For somebody that is defining science they are very unscientific statements. ie. Lack reference to data.
Lets assume climate change is happening (which I believe) and lets assume that it is caused by humans. What are your solutions Robert?
Stop doing the things that are causing the most greenhouse gases, if possible. It is possible to leave lignite in the ground. Let's leave it there. It is possible to change our transport systems, let's change them. It is possible to change our farming systems, let's change them.
We'll need to make provisions for the effects that have already shown themselves: increased adverse weather events, let's make those provisions.
For starters.
Lignite is a heating source. And I guess a cheap one. What is the likely result, of removing it as an option, on the average household?
Transport systems. Change what to what?
Farming systems. There has been much commentary on the lack of options for reducing emissions on animal farms (assuming we maintain productivity). What are you suggesting here?
Lignite is the worst of the greenhouse gas sources. leave it in the ground.
The average household, assisted by the Government, can insulate, firstly, then install a heating source that both keeps them warm and reduces the community's contribution to climate change. The Government's legislation around clean air is oing that already, Anonymous.
Trains, of course, both for cargo and passenger. Did you really have to ask?
Lack of options on the farm? You make me laugh. Stubborn refusal to change short-term, short-sighted wealth creation for a few, that's what's blocking thinking around farming. We need food from farms, and fuel. Instead we get exportable product. Pssssh.
Great result for Bathurst Resources.
Unfortunately for the world, the pork-barrelling money will still flow to fund scientists who are paid to ‘find’ a crisis. And, as usual, no government funding will go to those scientists voluntarily pursuing the opposite side of the argument and other theories.
Politicians have blatantly aided and abetted the most costly, undemocratic blunder in generations.
The mass attacks on sceptics by ‘warmists,’ has concealed what has been taking place in the halls of power where politicians have allowed their governments to ‘swindle’ the people they are meant to represent.
only problem with that robert is that 186 billion tons of co2 are liberated to atmosphere annually,, and of that only 6.3 billion is from industry,
not withstanding the fact that co2 is not driving temp,, and it never has in the millions of years past .
interesting that 1905 artic ice was such that ships could sail the north west passage and im sure that in the medievil warm period which was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than it is now artic ice was less .
both of these situations are before the supposed industrial increase in co2 .
what caused the medievil warm period Robert ?
or did the Eskimos actually invent the car before Henry Ford ?
Anonymous@3:16
Take one disprin and see me in the morning.
BS - whatever it was that caused the mediaeval warm period, I'd not like to see it combined with the greenhouse effect we have created presently. That combination would be deadly.
Or do you, BS, not subscribe to the science that describes the greenhouse effect?
so what you seem to be saying without realizing it is that ,,, man made co2 will have 13X the influence of naturally occuring co2 .. well that what ipcc models predict .
but the fact is that the effect of co2 is not amplified,, it is not even linear,, it is in fact logrithmic, where as heat loss is exponential,
the influence of co2 on temp is one of deminishing return,
and bearing in mind that man contributes only 4% of total atmospheric co2 to suggest we are in fact heating the planet or have the capacity to do so is absurd.
Robert @1.08pm
So we lumber the tax payer with cost. Then challenge households to invest in heating and pay more expense to heat? What happens to those that can't afford it?
We used to have trains for public transport but they have gone. Why do you think that is?
Fuel from farms. Wow. Do we need more fracking?
Sure we need food from farms. Thank goodness we are so good at it in NZ. Nice to see you promoting farming and improving those productive relationships.
now this i have to ask?
mr guyton,, u seem critical of an exporting agricultural economy.
some twaddle about short term wealth for a few ,
and lack of options,
please tell us all out here how to create paradise ?
BS Buster & Anonymous
What about CO2 & Ocean acidification? Fossil fuel use has caused the pH of the oceans to become more acidic and this will continue unless drastic cuts to CO2emissions are made.
ps- no scientists got rich while making the measurements.
the sea is not being acidified .
the ocean already has about 50 times the co 2 than the atmosphere .
positively charged base ions are being leached into the ocean by rain at a substantially greater rate than any supposed acidification from acid rain,, that is why the sea is salty
its just another climate change myths im afraid
Methinks the watermelons are getting desperate!
Methinks the watermelons are getting desperate!
BS buster- you are just plain wrong!
It's not about acid rain, but about CO2 in the oceans becoming carbonic acid.The ocean absorbs some of the CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more into the oceans, more carbonic acid formed and the ocean pH drops.
Ocean pH is now averages 8.1 (down from 8.3 pre industrial era)The ocean is still alkaline but the problem is that it is becoming more acidic, with serious consequences for marine ecosytems.
Just shows how you are prepared to argue when you are not informed about the subject under discussion.
no viv ,, you dont understand what your observing ,, the increase in atmospheric co2 is from oceans liberating co2 to atmosphere as the sun heats the ocean,, this is demonstrated by the pacific osccilation and temp increase ,, not the other way around ,,
temp increase is a good sign if your concerned about ocean ph.
once again ocean ph has \ historicaly fluctuated and interestingly indepenent from atmospheric co2
recent ,, [ last 50 years ] coral growth has been relatively high compared to the past ,
so the correlation between coral growth and ocean ph is fiction [ sherwood keith, craig idso] ]
Post a Comment