Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: Credibility Hurt? on 02/12/2009 13:13:12 MST Print View

Actually people cared deeply about the environment and fought hard against pollution loooong before global warming. And will loong after its gone. There are far more profound reasons to care about the environment than a theoretical apocalypse. If people need an apocalypse to care about the air they breath and the water they drink well, I have no regard for those people.
We have demonstrable concrete reasons to care so no reason to make an abstract theory a religion.
And what happens if you put all your eggs in this one basket and it turns out false? The damage to the environmental movement will be devastating.

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
"Actually" on 02/12/2009 13:26:50 MST Print View

I didn't say no one cared about the environment. I simply pointed out that the climate change crisis has mainstreamed environmental concerns in a way that other issues hadn't previously been able to.

If the science behind the climate change crisis is wrong, then perhaps the environmental movement will be hurt.

If YOU are wrong, then we're in for a catastrophe.

I'll take my chances with mainstream scholarly consensus--climate change is real, though we struggle to measure it's effects. In anycase, we'll run out of oil soon enough to make this moot unless, god forbid, we fall back on coal--but we wouldn't be that stupid would we?

Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: "Actually" on 02/12/2009 13:38:50 MST Print View

"If YOU are wrong, then we're in for a catastrophe."

Why would that be?
We still need to manage resources and find clean fuels ect, ect.

You still seem to be stuck on the idea that one NEEDS to believe a catastrophe is coming to care about the environment.
Are you saying that if it turns out false its OK to pollute and destroy wild lands? Is that the only reason you think people care- because their scared?
I cared when there was a scientific consensus an ice age was cumming, Ill care no matter what.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: "Actually" on 02/12/2009 13:44:15 MST Print View

Hi Nate,

lets sort out a couple of concepts here.

Global warming theory - the idea that the human emissions of co2 are causing the earth to warm up, with potentially bad consequences like abrupt sea level rise, species extinction, more bushfires etc.

Climate change - a weasel worded phrase used by global warming theorists nowadays because the world has been cooling down for several years.

Climate change? the climate has always changed! It was warmer than now in medieval times, and warmer than that in Roman times, and even warmer than that in the bronze age. There have been long cold spells in between these climate optima. The temperature in England rose over 3C in 45 years between 1690 and 1735!

Either the theory that mans co2 warms the world up is right or it's wrong. It can't cool the world down while it keeps on rising, so either:

1) Natural forces are overpowering the co2 effect (which shows it isn't as strong as the global warming theorists said it was) or:

2) Global warming theory is wrong, or at least badly exaggerated.

Today the UK MET, who have previously been 'strong co2 warming' theorists, have come out and said that climate scientists shouldn't go around making strong predictions, because nature might make fools of them and get the public all confused.

The lady who made the statement Vicky Pope, is head of the MET's climate change dept, so she can't flat out say they got it wrong, or she's talking herself out of her job. Read between the lines for yourself.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html

Edited by tallbloke on 02/12/2009 13:52:26 MST.

Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: Re: "Actually" on 02/12/2009 13:45:04 MST Print View

Let me clear Im not saying Global warming is wrong, Im just saying lets all just cool it a little, It a theory it could go either way despite what scientist feel personally about it.

Chris Townsend
(Christownsend) - MLife

Locale: Cairngorms National Park
The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 14:06:29 MST Print View

Vicky Pope of the Met Office is clear on what she thinks, finishing the piece cited above by saying:

"the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.

“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming."

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 14:20:14 MST Print View

Yup.

And listen to what she was saying about arctic ice just a couple of months back.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/2/12/vicky-pope-on-climate-change.html

te - wa
(mikeinfhaz) - F

Locale: Phoenix
global warming hoax on 02/12/2009 14:53:45 MST Print View

"Global warming theory - the idea that the human emissions of co2 are causing the earth to warm up, with potentially bad consequences like abrupt sea level rise, species extinction, more bushfires etc."

sorry bro, that is called The Greenhouse Effect. Let's not confuse the two. It is currently hip and cool to mask and marry the two terms into a confusing definition. As the above statement has clearly done.

fwiw, consider for one moment the power of words. When using the phrase ... "the environment" replace the word "the" with "OUR" and see what a dramatic increase of responsibility and place it sets upon us. You never never hear the term "our environment" because it seemingly our media's desire to (whether they realize it or not) place us above our environment as something we are not a large part of, and we are here to 'conquer'.

all one can do is be more responsible, on a personal level. one could argue that it takes as much energy and environmental impact to recycle an aluminum can as it does to create one from raw mineral. one could argue that the energy used to create these new "ultra energy saving fluorescent bulbs" negates the savings of using them. Ti sporks definately take huge amounts of energy to create, when compared to lexan, wood, or other metals. (ti is hard, folks. real hard.)
im no tree hugger, no die hard global warming supporter/denyer (sp?) but i find it funny that this is the new argument outdoing politics and religion. quite silly really, me thinks

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 15:05:35 MST Print View

Quoted from Sydney Morning Herald, February 10, 2009

'Scientists warned us this was going to happen'

If seeing is believing, then it's time to accept climate change, writes Freya Mathews.

IT IS only a couple of years since scientists first told us we could expect a new order of fires in south-eastern Australia, fires of such ferocity they would engulf the towns in their path.

[Death toll: 181 (so far, but still rising). Houses lost: ~750 so far, but towns still under threat. Area burnt: ~400,000 ha SO FAR. RNC]

And here they are. The fires of Saturday were not "once in 1000 years" or even "once in 100 years" events, as our political leaders keep repeating. They were the face of climate change.

They were the result of the new conditions that climate change has caused: higher temperatures, giving us hotter days, combined with lower rainfall, giving us a drier landscape. Let's stop using the word "drought", with its implication that dry weather is the exception. The desiccation of the landscape here is the new reality. It is now our climate.

People are comparing last Saturday to Ash Wednesday and Black Friday. But this misses the point. We should be comparing these fires to the vast and devastating fires of 2002-03, which swept through 2 million hectares of forest in the south-east and raged uncontrollably for weeks. They have been quickly forgotten because, being mainly in parks, they did not involve a large loss of human life or property. But it is to this fire regime, the new fire regime of climate change, rather than to the regimes of 1983 or 1939, that the present fires belong.

Saturday's events showed us the terrifying face of climate change. The heat was devastating, even without the fire.

Wildlife carers reported many incidents of heat stress and death among native animals. This means that out in the bush, unreported, vast numbers of animals were suffering. We can all see the trees and other plants dying in our gardens and parks.

Our local fauna and flora have not adapted to these extremes. With wildfire, heat death becomes a holocaust, for people, for animals and for plants.

The Government is wondering how to stimulate the economy. It is planning to give away much of the surplus from boom times in handouts. It has made the usual token allocations to climate change mitigation, allocations that will in no way deflect the coming holocaust.

The Prime Minister weeps on television at the tragedy of Saturday's events. He looks around uncomprehendingly, unable to find meaning. But there is meaning. This is climate change. This is what the scientists told us would happen. All the climatic events of the past 10 years have led inexorably to this. And this is just the beginning of something that will truly, if unaddressed, overwhelm us.

As the events of Saturday showed, the consequences of climate change will make the financial crisis look like a garden party.

John Haley
(Quoddy) - F

Locale: New York/Vermont Border
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 16:32:12 MST Print View

Roger... I, as a meteorologist during an advanced level meteorological course back in 1969, chose as my topic, "The Catastrophic Bushfires of Tasmania in 1967". Forty two years ago the popular concept of today was unheard of, and in fact had nothing to do with the fires. Natural cycles occur, and conditions leading to a final result also occur in nature. The sooner the populace realizes this instead of trying to place direct blame on an unrelated source, the better. These disasters are certainly regretable, but they are natural occurances.

Edited by Quoddy on 02/12/2009 16:52:14 MST.

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 16:43:47 MST Print View

Roger,

2008 was the 10th hottest year on record. It is only "cooling down" when compared to the hotter years immediately prior to this one. I'm aware of the historical cycles as well as the denialist propaganda you are so fond of. Since much of the prominent denialist research is funded by the energy industry, excuse me if I don't buy it.

What puts a nail into the coffin of the whole debate, though, is that whether or not the planet is warming as a result of CO2, we will run out of oil in the not-too-distant future. Whether or not the planet is warming as a result of our use of fossil fuels, these fossil fuels DO cause environmental harm (from asthma rates in polluted areas to the rise in p.H. levels of the ocean, etc. etc. etc.). So I don't really understand why some people are SO devoted to debunking the consensus. Every disturbing reality always has those who will deny...there are the Holocaust deniers, the evolution deniers, the 9/11 truthers and so on. What is unique about global warming deniers is that global warming theory is only one of many reasons to curb our dependence on fossil fuels. I really just don't get the obsession.

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
Cooling vs. Warming on 02/12/2009 16:50:11 MST Print View

You said:
"Either the theory that mans co2 warms the world up is right or it's wrong. It can't cool the world down while it keeps on rising, so either:"

Actually, there is a cooling effect as well as a warming effect occurring. And it makes perfect sense. Just as CO2 traps heat in, it also deflects heat from the sun away. Cooling vs. Warming--at the same time. Haven't you read of this? It's fairly well-documented.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: global warming hoax on 02/12/2009 17:47:37 MST Print View

> "Global warming theory - the idea that the human emissions of co2 are causing the earth to warm up, with potentially bad consequences like abrupt sea level rise, species extinction, more bushfires etc."

sorry bro, that is called The Greenhouse Effect. Let's not confuse the two. It is currently hip and cool to mask and marry the two terms into a confusing definition. As the above statement has clearly done.

Hi Michael. the greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon which keeps earth around 33C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming theory talks about an "enhanced greenhouse effect" which is maybe where this confusion arises. The enhanced bit is the idea that by putting extra co2 into the air, temperature will be raised, causing increased evaporation and an excess of water vapour in the upper troposphere, where it would cause more warming, leading to a 'positive feedback' and a 'runaway effect'.

These are the extreme ideas Vicky Pope is advising against.

The models have failed. It's time to reclaim our environment from failed politically motivated 'scientific ideas' and pick up the pieces.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Cooling vs. Warming on 02/12/2009 17:51:43 MST Print View

>Actually, there is a cooling effect as well as a warming effect occurring. And it makes perfect sense. Just as CO2 traps heat in, it also deflects heat from the sun away.

Could you provide a link to something on this Nate? The earth's albedo is primarily influenced by cloud cover and ice reflectivity. Co2 reflecting heat away is a new one on me.

Co2 is transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation. It's the longwave outgoing radiation from the surface that it traps.

> I don't really understand why some people are SO devoted to debunking the consensus. Every disturbing reality always has those who will deny...there are the Holocaust deniers, the evolution deniers, the 9/11 truthers and so on. What is unique about global warming deniers is that global warming theory is only one of many reasons to curb our dependence on fossil fuels. I really just don't get the obsession.

I'm interested in the science Nate. It matters quite a lot, if we are going to plan for the future, we need to know whether it's going to get hotter or colder. I believe it's going to get a lot colder, and because of the global warming hype, we were not ready for this winter in the uk. There will be something like 25,000 excess deaths due to cold because of this.

Like you I care about our environment and have fitted a solar hot water heater to my house. The debate on fossil fuel pollution is a different thing to the debate about co2 though, and people need to keep that in mind.

Edited by tallbloke on 02/12/2009 18:19:19 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 17:57:37 MST Print View

> Quoted from Sydney Morning Herald, February 10, 2009

'Scientists warned us this was going to happen'

If seeing is believing, then it's time to accept climate change, writes Freya Mathews.

IT IS only a couple of years since scientists first told us we could expect a new order of fires in south-eastern Australia, fires of such ferocity they would engulf the towns in their path.

[Death toll: 181 (so far, but still rising). Houses lost: ~750 so far, but towns still under threat. Area burnt: ~400,000 ha SO FAR. RNC]

And here they are. The fires of Saturday were not "once in 1000 years" or even "once in 100 years" events, as our political leaders keep repeating. They were the face of climate change.

Hi Roger C.
Frankly, I'm appalled the Sydney Morning Herald would try to make climate capital out of this tragedy. What about the issues of fire suppression and directives/laws against felling and brush clearance? Where do they fit into the picture?

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
Fair enough on 02/12/2009 18:49:53 MST Print View

sorry to lump you in with the fringe.

I'll look for the link later on....it's difficult tracking stuff down on this topic. The web is filled with stuff. I'm off to Darwin Day celebrations.

Cheers to science prevailing over ideology--that we can all agree on

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Fair enough on 02/12/2009 19:00:02 MST Print View

>Cheers to science prevailing over ideology--that we can all agree on

Don't let an ideologist hear you say that.

Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Re: Re: Fair enough on 02/12/2009 19:10:30 MST Print View

>>Cheers to science prevailing over ideology--that we can all agree on

>Don't let an ideologist hear you say that.

Wait - do you mean ideologist actually listen to other people?

Ali e
(barefootnavigator) - F

Locale: Outside
Global Warming or is ? on 02/12/2009 19:31:30 MST Print View

Personally I think it is all made up BS in an attemp to make more money, but just because I think something doesnt mean its true. In our tiny little world we try and make a difference. We sold one of our two cars and the second is on the way out. We try and ride and walk everywhere we can. I have cut my air tralvel by 99% and thats allot. We lived 8 months this year almost completely off of the grid and will be off 100% by June 1st. We use a car battery for light on a small boat and try to collect all our water from the sky. Last year we used an average of 5 gallons per week four two humans and two dogs while on the boat. We do use other water like for showers and drinking while away from the boat. I am working on a solar systme to recharge our batteries but for the most part we just live the same hours as the sun. We use a alcohol lantern for 95% of our lighting but its nice to be able to flick the switch when we need to. While this may not make a differece in the world we still feel good about it and its really fun being so independant. Alilizzie on the roo

Edited by barefootnavigator on 02/12/2009 19:33:42 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/12/2009 21:04:12 MST Print View

Hi Roger T

Some sensitive and touchy issues!

> I'm appalled the Sydney Morning Herald would try to make climate capital out of this tragedy.
Media company (with a sagging bottom line). End of story.

> What about the issues of fire suppression
Forgive me if I get VERY blunt here. YOU CAN'T STOP AN AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRE!
See a posting by Arapiles for some first-hand info about the conditions: temperature >40 C, wind >60 kph, humidity <6%.
Until you have experienced these conditions you may not understand. All the volunteer fire fighters can do is to try to save houses and people. In many cases even trying to do this would have been suicidal.

> and directives/laws against felling and brush clearance?
Regulations are made by politicians. Politicians want to be re-elected by the 'popular' vote. Developers want to make money, regardless of regulations. Home owners want to build as cheaply as possible. Do not expect anything other than short-term self-interest.

One farmer in the fire region saw this coming and cleared the trees from some area around his house. He was prosecuted by the local council and fined $100,000 for doing it. Guess what: every other house in his area has been burnt to the ground. His house and buildings are still standing, untouched. He would like to think the council might refund the $100,000 fine, but is not holding his breath.

The Fire Chiefs want the building code to specify a temperature rating of 1090 C for building materials used in fire-prone areas. The Victorian State Premier and the developer lobby want a lower temperature so houses can be built more cheaply.

Do not expect much to come out of this. There will be lots of crocodile tears and Inquiries by the politicians, but a year later nothing much will have changed. It will only be the fourth(?) such huge fire disaster in Victoria in the last 100 years, and the same complete lack of action happened every other time.

Solutions?
1) Remember the backyard bomb shelters of WW II? The Forestry Commission builds these in all their logging areas. Cold and damp, but very functional.
2) The Insurance industry has announced that they will start refusing to insure houses in some areas. They have already introduced their own conditions for insurance in hurricane-prone areas.

Cheers

Edit: on rereading this, it seems that I have some strong feelings on the subject. Ah well...

Edited by rcaffin on 02/12/2009 21:08:42 MST.