Greenhouse gases.....grizzle time

[Iain]

I just received my first account from Red Energy, a bit cheaper than the opposition and a 5% discount for paying on time, but.....and this is a big but, there is a little notice on the back telling me that ""I"" have sent 2.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Now, as far as I was aware, I only bought the power, I didn't generate it, sorry, I don't have the spare few billion dollars to put in a power plant that is environmentally friendly.
So why do these bastards tell me that I am the perpetrator of such a vile act (not to mention Greenpeace with their diesel powered ship belching out exhaust fumes in the name of conservation), surely they are the ones burning the coal or whatever to provide me with what is claimed to be clean energy.
I just can't win.

[Grunt]

Because if you were dead you wouldn't use electricity and therefore wouldn't generate greenhouse gasses. Last time I looked you were alive.

Don't pass the buck. It's you who is using the electicity which produces the greenhouse gasses. Use less electicity. Get solar.

95% of all electricity is Victoria is generated by fosil fuels which generate greenhouse gasses. There are no viable environmentally alternatives to fosil fuels.

Power down.

[ptc]

GLOBAL WARMING !!!
what a load of crap,
when i was a young fella it was Global Cooling " the ice age was coming"
we were told that it would be the second ice age
Still Waiting for that.

In Queensland you can buy GREEN electrcity but never found any one that had seen any.

[bitingmidge]

Winning is possible, but you won't like the lifestyle!

They have a point...you polluter of my world you!!

On the other hand, EVERY project I have had approved over the last five years has had connection to mains electricity as a condition of approval.

One of those I managed to win on objection, you account of it was 20 miles offshore on an island, but there is no choice on the others.

So self sufficiency and sustainability are just buzz words that pollies and planners use to get you to pay levies to ensure their infrastructure doesn't have to be sustainable....

Stop this!! I'm going to the beach!!

Cheers,

P
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Iain]

BUt everytime there is a move to put in wind generators the protesters come out and kill it, solar is not a viable option for us, we use little in comparison to some households, I recycle all my rubbish, drive a 1200cc car when I am not towing, walk into town.
Solar hot water gets bad reports from all the plumbers I have spoken to, solar electicity is just far too expensive to set up, did it once with gas refrigerator.
Can watch TV but not do the washing, do the washing but can't iron, inverters are not that efficient and even the solar providers will tell you that if you are close to a mains supply it is a better option.
I used to work with an armchair conservationist, claimed to be a vegetarian too, does that means he eats more legumes and therefore buggers up the atmosphere with an excess of methane?
I cannot stand protesters who have nothing to contribute as an option.

[Studley 2436]

The Science that they use to proove the greenhouse effect if very soft. Einstein proved in about 1930 that the earth is a closed system. Nothing is lost it just changes but the same elements are there in the the exact same numbers ad infinitum.

A good one is the way the so called hole in the greenhouse layer is growing. They took the measurements downwind from Mt Erebus which is spewing cholrine into the atmosphere. From this they said gee gosh cars make CO2 which then bonds with the Ozone O3 making carbon monoxide and oxygen and no ozone we will all die of skin cancer!

Of course in the same breath they bleated about the ozone cars make which is what makes the smog around cities but that doesn't get up into the atmosphere's high levels unlike the CO2. So proof cars make the smog and wreck the ozone layer. Clever cars aren't they!

Regarding climate change they just don't know. 20 years ago they thought we were about to freeze in a new ice age. They don't even know if there is any clilmate change happening. Well the earths climate has changed over the eons so it is fair to assume it is changing but that is about all they can assume.

Studley

[Grunt]

Nothing is lost it just changes but the same elements are there in the the exact same numbers ad infinitum.
Yes but there location is different. These carbon molocules were 1000's of metres underground and now they are floating in the atmosphere.

The majority of climatologists beleive that global warming is real. Even George Bush has thinks it's real.

Who here thinks that the weather is whackyier now than when they were young. More extreme weather. Get used to it.

The earth has undergone many changes in climate over the ages. It's just doing it fast now.


I cannot stand protesters who have nothing to contribute as an option.

I don't think there is a technical solution to greenhouse. The world is hell bent on economic growth which means that we will continue to use more energy. There is not any viable cheap source of energy other than coal and oil. Nuclear does not produce greenhouse gases but the waste that is produced is quite vile and it won't break down anytime soon.


Solar hot water gets bad reports from all the plumbers I have spoken to, solar electicity is just far too expensive to set up, did it once with gas refrigerator.

You should have a look at heat pump type hot water systems. They can also heat your house. http://www.quantumenergy.com.au/

In my opinion the world is fricked. So enjoy it while you can.

[Greg Q]

Because if you were dead you wouldn't use electricity and therefore wouldn't generate greenhouse gasses.
.

The decomposition though releases carbon. If cremated, more of the same. You can't win.

Global climate change and greenhouse gases may be unproven. Problem is,
the proof is the end of the world as we know it.

There are three kinds of air pollution that I understand:

Chlorinated gases which harm the ozone layer*

Particulates which harm your lungs

carbon dioxide which acts as an insulator, causing warming. (and more water vapour uptake, which is itself a greenhouse gas)

*I read once that scientists in the antarctic used halon as a lubricant for their core drills, and tons of it. Halon is banned in fire extiguishers because of the ozone problem. Can anyone refute this story?

Anyway Iain, don't feel bad. In my job I personally create about 14,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. All of this may be my fault:(

[Termite]

I read somewhere that Australia's biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas problem was all the sheep and cattle we have.

Does this mean we should all become vegetarians.......with the same gas problem. :D

[Greg Q]

Here's some cheery news:

http://www.ghgonline.org/methane.htm

[Grunt]

I read somewhere that Australia's biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas problem was all the sheep and cattle we have.

Does this mean we should all become vegetarians.......with the same gas problem. :D

No, we need to eat kangaroo, deer and chickens. These are low impact animals. Being a vego doesn't really help. Modern farming methods require so much oil to be consumed that the net greenhouse emissions are very high.

Like I said before we're fricked.

[Grunt]

Termite, it's all your fault.

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm

[Termite]

Termite, it's all your fault.

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm
Believe me, I produce much more than 1/2 microgram each day. :D Should I go and slash my wrists or wait for the usual slip with a chisel. ;)

[oges]

I read somewhere that Australia's biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas problem was all the sheep and cattle we have.

Does this mean we should all become vegetarians.......with the same gas problem. :D
No just have more bbq's

[Greg Q]

No just have more bbq's

Sorry, no. Read the first article here:

http://www.ghgonline.org/index.htm

[Termite]

Sorry, no. Read the first article here:

http://www.ghgonline.org/index.htm
If any Botulism can survive one of my Barby's it can have me. They don't call me "Charcoal" for nothing. :D

[ptc]

Just imagine all the gas from the Dinosaur's
Methane ?

[womble]

there might be a majority of scientists saying global warming is real but that does not mean they are right, the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise. I too remember growing up with the theory that we were heading into another ice age...espoused by the same scientists who today champion global warming. Whether the dissenters against them are right or not I do not know.

Interestingly the news had on the other day that scientists have 'discovered' that trees produce large amounts of methane too...good excuse to cut down more :D

[Iain]

My late MIL used to reckon that there was never so much rain until man landed on the moon, the spikes on the lunar module apparently punched holes in the surface of the moon and we got wet as a result.
The joys of dementia..............

BIt like Billy Connolly talking about his dad, everyone worries about him, but fook, he's happy, why should we worry.

[Greg Q]

there might be a majority of scientists saying global warming is real but that does not mean they are right,

Nor does it mean that they are wrong.;)

the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise.

Back then, there was no education as such, and ignorance and superstition
was the mechanism for 'understanding" the world.
I too remember growing up with the theory that we were heading into another ice age...espoused by the same scientists who today champion global warming. Whether the dissenters against them are right or not I do not know.

Different 'scientists'. The climatologists were mute on the subject. The geological evidence was of four fairly regular ice ages, so they just extrapolated and went with the odds.

Interestingly the news had on the other day that scientists have 'discovered' that trees produce large amounts of methane too...good excuse to cut down more :D


I'd like to hear from someone why methane is a net greenhouse gas. Vegetation grows because atmospheric carbon dioxide is bound chemically to help create the actual biomass. That this is then digested and farts ensue doesn't explain how they figure there is more carbon released.

[Ivan in Oz]

there is a little notice on the back telling me that ""I"" have sent 2.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I just can't win.
Tell them to give you other options if they want to keep you as a Customer.

Put it back on them:D

OR tell them to stick it ............ um??? Up their Exhaust Stack:eek:

Be like a politician; turn it around.
speaking of Politics and being GREEN.....................:mad:

[Auld Bassoon]

Just connect botty to the BBQ cylinder, take a deep breath, and PUSH: Cylinder recharged :p :D :eek: :p

[Iain]

Two problems Steve:
1. If it's liquid it aint methane:rolleyes:
2. Whilst managing several decibels after beer and pizza I doubt I could manage 150 psi;)

[Clinton1]

What about using a large syringe? Extraction and insertion could be achieved by this novel method.
Let me know how you get on, but stories only - no photos!

[Kev Y.]

From one who works in the industry - maybe not too hard and working is such a flexible word :o - this push to "green" energy is a crock of shyte

The politicians want to be seen to be good global citizens, and thereby do the "PC" thing by the planet, but if they go too far down the green track, where are they going to get the revenue generated from places like where I work:eek:

IF australia is so concerned about the GLOBAL WARMING issue, why hasn't Bonsi Johnnie signed onto the Kyoto Agreement?, instead the governments have put the responsibility back onto the power generators to "improve" greenhouse emmissions. They have tried such silly schemes like CARBON CREDITS, not sure exactly how it worked, but along with most industry buzz words this to means F.A

Granted australia (and the world) can not go merrily burning fosil fuels ad inifitum, but look at the alternatives:

Solar.... the cost of PRODUCING the solar panels is more than the return from using solar energy! and then storing the produced power....just how much natural resource is used to smelt/blend/purify what is required to make a simple battery?

Wind... Not such a bad idea, find a spot of isolated coast line, bung up a coulpe of windmills, and start making cheap power.. WRONG, the power may be cheap - not free, you have to factor in the cost of infastructure like power lines, transformers and the like, then look at the issue of wind speed, if the breeze is too slight, no gerneration, if the gusts are too strong, again no generation!, however for the 10 percent of the year that the wind is juuuussst right, cheap power. ALSO, one wind generator will produce at a maximum, 3-6 Megawatts, IF you know what the fosil stations produce, LOY YANG puts out 2500 megawatts an hour 24 hours a day all year, you do the maths and see how many wind farms we need.

Nuclear- nuff said who wants a toxic dump near them, waste fuel rods, weapons grade stuff

Hydro.. good clean cheap power, just dam a river and re-route the water throught a turbine or two.. simple... WRONG AGAIN.. if you look at the operation of the snowy scheme, you will notice that they use the water from "storage dams" to produce the electricity. what you dont see is the amount of power they use to PUMP THE WATER AROUND during the evening just so you can feel good about using a "free power" source during the day.

Natural Gas.. still a fosil fuel not as bad emmission wise but not as cheap either.

So when you see that YOU are responsible for 2.5 tonnes of green house gas each billing cycle, look at the alternatives and think of some way which will be truely good for the planet


Wheeew [rant mode off]

[Greg Q]

IF australia is so concerned about the GLOBAL WARMING issue, why hasn't Bonsi Johnnie signed onto the Kyoto Agreement?....snip...., [rant mode off]

I hear you, Brudda. I don't know what the answer to all of this is, but I do know that Kyoto ain't it. Even if Kyoto had 100% consensus, and compliance, it wouldn't change the equation enough to matter.

If climate change is real (and I respect the voices arguing for it more than those against), then we need much deeper cuts to global fossil fuel use than
Kyoto provides for. Factor in higher per capita use in the rapidly developing world and a growing population means that we need cuts so profound that our economy would tank.

I'm going to go out a plant a few trees. I'll probably have to do this every day for the rest of my life to break even, carbon-wise.

[Grunt]

Quite so. Solar payback after you account the cost including the amount of fosil fuels used in the manufacture is around 15-20 years. A solar panel has a life span of 25 years. There is barely worth the effort. It's certainly not a planet saver. It is just about impossible to do on a large enough scale to replace Loy Yang.

There are some solar technologies that are worthwhile. Like the Sunball (http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/) which has a payback in less than 10 years.

There is also convection power generation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,776735,00.html#article_continue) which would certainly work in Australia.

On an individual basis you can make a difference. The biggest thing you can do is to design or redesign your house to be more efficient. I'm talking about 8 & 9 star ratings not 5. Solar passive. Natural heating and cooling using a greenhouse on the north side of the house and a shade house on the south. Don't live in a McMansion. Everyone builds 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom and 3 living area houses when the average family is 4.5 people. Solar and wind (if you live in the right place) on a small scale can work, if you chose the right technologies.

The government doesn't care if we frick the environment. It only cares about growth and jobs. Ultimately, this need for growth and consumerism will end in tears. The changes that are needed will be unpleasant and any government that impliments them will be voted out of office. So it will remain business as usual. Until the SHTF.

Every year the human population consumes 400 years worth of resourses. It is plain to see that it isn't sustainable in the long term and probably in the medium term.

The population is growing rapidly and more Chinese and Indians want to live the lifestyle of the westerners. This will be disasterous for the environment. China is increasing its focil fuel usage by 30% per year. Completely unsustainable.

In my opinion, you should eat, drink and be merry because we're fricked in any case.

[Greg Q]

On an individual basis you can make a difference. The biggest thing you can do is to design or redesign your house to be more efficient. I'm talking about 8 & 9 star ratings not 5. Solar passive. Natural heating and cooling using a greenhouse on the north side of the house and a shade house on the south. Don't live in a McMansion. Everyone builds 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom and 3 living area houses when the average family is 4.5 people. Solar and wind (if you live in the right place) on a small scale can work, if you chose the right technologies.

.

I tried talking to someone from one of the local councils about deciduous trees around houses-cool shade in summer, light in winter. They wouldn't have a bar of it.

When we build our next house I am going to make my own double glazing and insulate like there's no tomorrow. If we get enough land I'll also check out a heat pump.

There is a good book to counter the Mcmansion syndrome: "Building the not so big house", by Susan Susanka. Thoughful, articulate. She is an architect who was tired of building two-storey foyers and living rooms for show instead of actual use.

Greg

[Dion N]

Quote:
Originally Posted by womble

the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise.

Back then, there was no education as such, and ignorance and superstition
was the mechanism for 'understanding" the world.


People may have believed the world was flat up until say the 1500s, but this was not due to a lack of education! Universities have been around for a lot longer than that! Ancient civilisations had centres of learning and educated classes.

Well educated scientists of the times believed in a flat earth for a number of reasons. I suspect the main reason was that everyone else did too... Which might explain why a lot of people today are hot under the collar about global warming.

[Greg Q]

I don't think that the number of 'educated' people was all that high. I believe that illiteracy was the norm, and only basic counting skills too.

You have chosen to lump those who see the merit in the theory as modern flat earthers. What ever floats your boat (on the rising sea):p

BTW, while compelling, I am not a fan of anecdotal evidence. The fact that the last nine of ten years have been the warmest on record (in what? 150 years?) does start to sound like either a temporary aberation or the start of a change. I have been a user of the atmosphere for 51 years, man and boy, and it does seem as though our current climate belongs to a different statistical universe than we enjoyed previously. My perceptions may be(probably are) faulty, but by the time this is obvious it will be too late to fix.

Cheers

Greg

[Termite]

You mean to tell me the earths not flat :eek: .....61 years of belief shattered in an instant, but you'll never convince me there's no Santa Claus 'cause I saw what DarrylF got this Xmas. :D

[echnidna]

course it's not flat!!!!!!!!!!
its got hills and mountains

[Auld Bassoon]

Just imagine all the gas from the Dinosaur's
Methane ?

Maybe the Permian-Triassic big extinction event wasn't caused by a cometary impact, but rather by a build up of all that methane, until one day: Whump! :eek: :D

[Auld Bassoon]

Hi Brudda,

Broadly I agree with the point that you are making, however, there are some exceptions.

1. The Rance tidal river in Normandy (France) has a road bridge across it (about 1.5Km if memory serves, and this bridge has been designed and engineered such that it a series of sluice gates and turbines (Pelton Wheels, I believe) built in to it to generate electrical power for supply to the French National Grid. Expensive? yes, but has apparently been written down to almost zero some twenty years after construction, and still has a fairly good life expectancy.

2. Solar power - not really viable yet for electrical power generation in a truly eco-sustainable way because of the energy cost of panel and battery. However, Solar heated water is eminently viable; very common indeed in South Africa, but invisible here. I've no idea why, unless it's because of the fast-buck merchants over-pricing things, unwarranted and broadly unnecessary regulation, control and licensing issues, etc?

3. Simple lifestyle things like using a clothes line or Hills Hoist (iconic!) instead of the grumble dryer - although I must admit to being as guilty as most on this.

On the matter of the anecdotal evidence, I seem to recall, as a boy, that every day in summer and autumn was bright, sunny and warm :)

Cheers

[Greg Q]

Hydro energy is cheap and plentiful in Canada, but they have a serious bounty
of fresh water and elevation change to make it all work.

Wasn't there a plan to harness tidal energy in the Northwest? I forget
the town/river, but as I recall the plans were fairly advanced, just lacks
political will. Oh, and money.

[ozwinner]

However, Solar heated water is eminently viable; very common indeed in South Africa, but invisible here.

Didnt you see the one on my roof..?
Very over priced, but it saves on power, it may take 120000 years to pay it off but Im doing my bit.

I reckon I could make the same hot water service for <$500.
Where as this one cost $3500, with gov rebate.
Al :D

[echnidna]

Maybe the government should ban reverse cycle air conditioners

[Grunt]

We're certainly pumping a lot of crap into the atmosphere.


bal warming is set to accelerate alarmingly because of a sharp jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Preliminary figures, exclusively obtained by The Independent on Sunday, show that levels of the gas - the main cause of climate change - have risen abruptly in the past four years. Scientists fear that warming is entering a new phase, and may accelerate further.

Read More (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338689.ece)

[ozwinner]

Johnny is doing his bit to help. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/canberra-slashes-solar-power-rebates/2006/01/15/1137259945071.html) :D

Al

[silentC]

Don't worry. With Iran currently trying to hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam, we wont have time to see what happens with global warming.

[gidgee 1]

co2 level at present (depending who quotes the figures:D )is between 380-400ppm,to put that in perspective If you had a white computer screen that was 1000 pixelsx1000 pixels =1,000,000 pixels then you replaced 400 white ones with 400 black ones to represent the co2 you would be lucky to see them.Keeping in mind that co2 is not visible it is clear you cannot see it!!!!:D So how the hell do you expect co2 to have any effect on the climate?:confused: :confused:

[Daddles]

co2 level at present (depending who quotes the figures:D )is between 380-400ppm,to put that in perspective If you had a white computer screen that was 1000 pixelsx1000 pixels =1,000,000 pixels then you replaced 400 white ones with 400 black ones to represent the co2 you would be lucky to see them.Keeping in mind that co2 is not visible it is clear you cannot see it!!!!:D So how the hell do you expect co2 to have any effect on the climate?:confused: :confused:

Thus speaks a true environmental vandal. I guess you piddle upstream of where you get drinking water too - I mean, it's a big creek and one small widdle won't make difference eh?

As for some of the other comments. Whethe global warning is real or not, we are using up resources that either can't be replaced or can't be replaced quickly. We are polluting our planet and doing little to clean it up afterwards. And you can't see a problem with this? Little Old Oz ain't a big place population wise, but if we can't be responsible here, we can't complain about other countries, despite what our politicians believe.

Richard

[gidgee 1]

Thus speaks a true environmental vandal. I guess you piddle upstream of where you get drinking water too - I mean, it's a big creek and one small widdle won't make difference eh?

As for some of the other comments. Whethe global warning is real or not, we are using up resources that either can't be replaced or can't be replaced quickly. We are polluting our planet and doing little to clean it up afterwards. And you can't see a problem with this? Little Old Oz ain't a big place population wise, but if we can't be responsible here, we can't complain about other countries, despite what our politicians believe.

Richard


Daddles I don`t think this topic requires name calling:eek: :) ,if you have a different view thats fine but as you appear to be misinformed by your obvious green colouring check out this www predictweather.com (http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/www predictweather.com)
but beware it contains lots of commonsense and facts that greenies don`t want to see:)

[Studley 2436]

Damn I want a nuclear plant. Actually 3. Put one in the South East somewhere so I can flog power to the Vics, One for Adelaide so we can desalinate water and finally drink water that is more than 50% water and one up for the Iron Triangle cause they could use it. Bit of cheap power would get us out of the bottom end of things we are still in after John Bannons lovely government sent us broke.

After that I am going to dig up Maralinga and build a really big facility for storage. And I'll lease the storage. France USA Russia send us your waste we will rent you a space for it. If you us off we will send it back.

Damn nuclear power nuclear scientists industry finally an economy. We used to have an economy in SA we could have one again. I should take Media Mikey's job!

Studley

[Greg Q]

Daddles I don`t think this topic requires name calling:eek: :) ,if you have a different view thats fine but as you appear to be misinformed by your obvious green colouring check out this www predictweather.com (http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/www predictweather.com)
but beware it contains lots of commonsense and facts that greenies don`t want to see:)

You are kidding, right? A weather prediction service based on the lunar cycle?

[Greg Q]

Damn I want a nuclear plant. Actually 3. Put one in the South East somewhere so I can flog power to the Vics, One for Adelaide so we can desalinate water and finally drink water that is more than 50% water and one up for the Iron Triangle cause they could use it. Bit of cheap power would get us out of the bottom end of things we are still in after John Bannons lovely government sent us broke.

After that I am going to dig up Maralinga and build a really big facility for storage. And I'll lease the storage. France USA Russia send us your waste we will rent you a space for it. If you us off we will send it back.

Damn nuclear power nuclear scientists industry finally an economy. We used to have an economy in SA we could have one again. I should take Media Mikey's job!

Studley

Here's an idea that will never float: The Australian continent is the world's most geologically stable, sparsely populated, politically stable. What better place to make a small nuclear storage facility? The Saudis and others are wealthy because we pump stuff from under their nation. We should charge a similar rate to pump stuff under ours. 200 Billion a year to sell uranium then take it back again.

[gidgee 1]

You are kidding, right? A weather prediction service based on the lunar cycle?


Obviously by the time frame since my last post you have not read much of what is on that website , so once again making comments based on nothing:rolleyes: :p

[silentC]

http://www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal/Oct2004/PseudoWeather.asp

[Grunt]

Do you want spent neclear rods to be shipped from all over the world into Darwin and then trucked down to some hole in the ground? Damn same if one of them ships sink or trucks tips over.

It's got a half-life of 100,000 years. Not much of what we build today will last 100 years let alone thousands of years.

Nuclear is not the answer.


You are kidding, right? A weather prediction service based on the lunar cycle?

The bloke is trying to sell crap. I would take what he has to say with a grain or two of salt.

[Grunt]

Obviously by the time frame since my last post you have not read much of what is on that website , so once again making comments based on nothing:rolleyes: :p
Most of it is bull. He is making it up as he goes along. Don't believe everything you read.

[Greg Q]

Obviously by the time frame since my last post you have not read much of what is on that website , so once again making comments based on nothing:rolleyes: :p


Once again? What's your problem sport?

[Greg Q]

Do you want spent neclear rods to be shipped from all over the world into Darwin and then trucked down to some hole in the ground? Damn same if one of them ships sink or trucks tips over.

It's got a half-life of 100,000 years. Not much of what we build today will last 100 years let alone thousands of years.

Nuclear is not the answer.

.

Actually, no, I don't. I don't think that nuclear is much of an answer to any question, climate or hidden imam.

As for the naysayers of climate change, well, their opinion is like mine: neither opinion matters. You can't fool physics with spin, and you can't change the world until the world wants to be changed.

[gidgee 1]

Actually, no, I don't. I don't think that nuclear is much of an answer to any question, climate or hidden imam.

As for the naysayers of climate change, well, their opinion is like mine: neither opinion matters. You can't fool physics with spin, and you can't change the world until the world wants to be changed.


I have no problem MATE:D I agree with your last post.
Yes there appears to be climate change at present .All I am saying is that

MAN IS NOT THE CAUSE OR THE CURE!!:)

[Iain]

All we need is an infinite probability drive, all our prayers will then be answered.....

[Greg Q]

Actually, I have been an Australian for years now, but it has only just hit me:
Blame New Zealand! Boiling mud may be the root of all of our problems;)

[Grunt]

MAN IS NOT THE CAUSE OR THE CURE!!:)
I wouldn't believe the website you are quoting. The guy is a little loonie. Admittedly, there are plenty of sites that attempt to debunk the global warming issue. Equally, there are plenty of sites that say it's real. The majority of climateolgists believe it to be true. That is not to say that they are correct but on the balance of probablity, I'll go with them.

I don't think I'm particlarly green. I'm just a realist. If you look at the way mankind is consuming the resources of the world it is obvious to me that we can't continue to do so forever. The Earth is finite and therefore everything in or on it is finite. Yet we consume more and more. China is increasing it's fosil fuel usage by 30% per year. If this continues by 2030 China alone will use as much fuel as the world does today, that is 85 million barrels a day. We will run out of oil, copper, uranium and just about everything if it continues unabated.

The population of the Earth is 6.5 billion. It has more than doubled in my life time. Every one of these people use and abuse the planet. The Earth's population has reached 'Overshoot'. That is we have exceeded our population limit. Nature has a way of dealing with over populations.

What we need to do is de-populate and individually use less. This is unlikely to happen unless it forced upon us.

My advice is to shoot the person on your left.

Oh, yes it is all the fault of them Kiwis.

[ozwinner]

The population of the Earth is 6.5 billion. It has more than doubled in my life time. .

Sooooooo!!
It all your fault hey??

Al :p

[Zed]

i love this thread, so many opinions no solutions. obvioulsy a woodworking site is the correct place for this discussion.

eat less, exercise more, buy a bicycle, love your kids. as indivuduals not much more you can do really. we aint responsible for the overpoulation - technology and civilization wears that one.

what we gotta do is
1) develop fusion power,
2) get off the planet (Interstellar travel and colonisation) and
3) develop trees that can eat salt water (quickly).

grunt is right - enjoy the ride, hope and shoot the bastard to the left of your immediate family (may as well shoot the bastard to the right too)

[Greg Ward]

It was the worst bloody Xmas ever. 10 days 35 degrees +. Couldn't work, couldn't sleep, stayed inside whiging about the weather. Bloody global warning!!!

I discussed it with mum, who checked her diary, she said 10 or so years ago, we had a worse Xmas..... 2 weeks with the temperature over 40 on some days. I can't remember, but she has it in black and white, so what does this mean?

All this means is that you can't take our limited day by day impressions of weather over a hot summer and claim that global warming is a coming.... It may be, (and if I were a tundra dweller, I'd say ..."Bring it on!") but one hot day don't prove anything.

We focus on the negative always. Global warming may be great for some! The aformentioned Tundra dwellers, insectiverous birds, pyromanics, and from a woodie perspective with the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, all the little trees will be very happy, as they will be able to grow faster. Faster growth means more fixed carbon..... well doesn't it?

So where does this leave us.

Unfortunately, with too many little humans, and too many breeders. A pandamic may solve the problem in a nasty way, but I think the Chinese way is almost right, limit families to 2 pax per pair, some won't breed so we'll slowly have negative growth (to quote the good economists).

More steps....encourage gay unions, monks and hermit behaviour, and provide free contraception globally.

Statistics can prove whatever the dissembler wants to show, within degrees of error, but if we are warming up, let's be positive! Tassie and NZ will become great places to move to, Antarctica may become forested, with sea level rises, the Sydney rich and the gold coast canals will all be under 100 foot of water. Now that's a positive!

I don't know, all I want is a good nights sleep, so I think I'll buy an air conditioner.
Regards
Greg

[ozwinner]

Antarctica may become forested,

As it used to be, this is what all the doom and gloomers forget..

Al :)

[Iain]

News Flash, Queensland in financial trouble due to global warming, Victorians no longer need to travel North:D :D :D :D :D :D
The reality is it's all the graffiti artists (?) with their bleeding spray cans doing the damage, and Bob Carr who talks out his Asre thereby creating more methane.

[silentC]

All this means is that you can't take our limited day by day impressions of weather over a hot summer and claim that global warming is a coming.... It may be, (and if I were a tundra dweller, I'd say ..."Bring it on!") but one hot day don't prove anything.
Well, there was a concensus reached by a group of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - back in 2001. They decided that the Earth IS warming and also that there is enough evidence to say that they are fairly certain it is caused by increases in greenhouse gases:


Although not fully settled, the current consensus from the official scientific communities on climate change is that recent warming is largely human-caused.

According to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is 66% to 90% certain to have been due to radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

But then I suppose it depends on whether you think they are an unbiased group, or whether they have been put together because they support the theory.

[Greg Q]

God help me, I listen to ABC News Radio too much. Last week Australia's leading climatologist (He went to school for it and everything) was being interviewed. He told of his earlier reluctance to make climate predictions for too far in the future, as he didn't know what deus ex machina (my term) would appear to ruin the prediction.

Now, however, he feels the situation is so dire that he is quite comfortable making a 100 year prediction because he feels that no one will be alive then to prove him wrong. Bummer man or what?

Greg

[Sturdee]

There is another aspect that is not yet considered here in this debate.

If the global warming does raise the earth temperature and as a result some of the polar ice melts and that raises the sea levels by say 300mm we are not greatly affected, sure some of our beaches will disappear but who cares.

However large areas of Europe will be under threat of the rising sea levels. This is of major concern over there and already the EEU is reluctant to trade with the countries that don't comply with the Kyoto agreement.

It may well be that in the near future when the EEU has sorted out the problems of admitting the new eastern European member nations that they will refuse to trade with us.

There is already great pressure for this to happen and Australia has already seen some exports to Europe curtailed because of our failure to ratify Kyoto. Notwithstanding little Johnie throwing $100M away again on something that will not work we may well be dragged into complying for financial reasons.

As they say " Its a brave new world we live in and it may not last much longer."

[ozwinner]

There is another aspect that is not yet considered here in this debate.

If the global warming does raise the earth temperature and as a result some of the polar ice melts and that raises the sea levels by say 300mm we are not greatly affected, sure some of our beaches will disappear but who cares.



Pete dont worry, its only them Dutchies......:p

Just kidding....

Al :D

[Bodgy]

Pete dont worry, its only them Dutchies......:p

Just kidding....

Al :D


AND the Pacific islands and atolls. We may get to beat the AllBlacks again!!

[Auld Bassoon]

It's just a tad more complicated than that (as I'm sure you are quite well aware Al); where would the extra water come from - the polar ice caps. Given that the north pole is really quite thin, the one could reasonably expect it to come from Antarctica where the ice is miles deep in places.

What would that do to ocean currents? I don't think anyone is quite sure, but as the whole planet is a large thermal engine, I think it reasonable to assume that the changes would be significant, and not necessarily very nice for us as we've become accustomed to the present situation.

Cheers!

[Iain]

Well, there was a concensus reached by a group of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - back in 2001. They decided that the Earth IS warming and also that there is enough evidence to say that they are fairly certain it is caused by increases in greenhouse gases.
Then of course there lies, damned lies and statistics:rolleyes:

[silentC]

>

THE world has already passed the point of no return on global warming, and efforts to slow it may already be doomed, one of Britain's best-known environmentalists says.

In what The Independent described as the bleakest assessment yet of the effects of climate change by a leading scientist, Professor James Lovelock said billions would die by the end of the century, and civilisation as it is known would be unlikely to survive.

"The few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable," Professor Lovelock wrote in the newspaper.

Professor Lovelock, who in the 1970s coined the Gaia thesis that the Earth was a single organism, called on governments to start making preparations for a "hell of a climate," in which by 2100 Europe and southern Australia would be 8 degrees hotter than they are today.

The scientist makes his predictions in a new book, The Revenge of Gaia, which argues that the feedback mechanisms that used to keep the Earth cooler than it would otherwise be are now working to amplify warming caused by human CO 2 emissions.

"Sadly I cannot see the United States or the economies of China and India cutting back in time and they are the main source of CO 2 emissions."

Professor Lovelock is a controversial but respected scientist who gave a briefing on global warming in 1989 to the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. Two years ago he caused a furore in the environment movement by urging greens to embrace nuclear power to reduce global warming gases.

[MathewA]

Because if you were dead you wouldn't use electricity and therefore wouldn't generate greenhouse gasses. Last time I looked you were alive.



If he were dead he would be giving off CO2 as he rotted so you can't win even if you die.

[Grunt]

Yes, but it's the same C02 that you were given when you were born. We are just recycling all of them molocules.

[Daddles]

Yes, but it's the same C02 that you were given when you were born. We are just recycling all of them molocules.

OMG. Where have those molecules been? Will one of Grunt's ... umm ... you know whats, come back as a boil on the Prime Minister's bum?:eek:

Richard

[ozwinner]

OMG. Where have those molecules been? Will one of Grunt's ... umm ... you know whats, come back as a boil on the Prime Minister's bum?:eek:

Richard

Feet??

Al :confused:

[stevek]

A good one is the way the so called hole in the greenhouse layer is growing. They took the measurements downwind from Mt Erebus which is spewing cholrine into the atmosphere. From this they said gee gosh cars make CO2 which then bonds with the Ozone O3 making carbon monoxide and oxygen and no ozone we will all die of skin cancer!

Studley

Actually, this is a common misconception which never really seems to be made clear when people are telling us about problems with our atmosphere. The hole in the ozone layer is a completely separate topic to the greenhouse effect.

The ozone layer helps protect us against UV radiation and O3 can be destroyed by things such as chloroflourocarbons (not CO2), which used to be used as propellants in aerosols.

CO2 and various other gases can act like the glass in a greenhouse - they allow radiant light energy from the sun to enter the atmosphere but then trap the heat energy from the earth (which is at a different wavelength) from escaping back into outer space. The earth is virtually a closed system in terms of particles but not in terms of energy. Unless the same total amount of energy is allowed to escape the earth as falls on it, the earth will either gradually heat up or cool down.

We can die from skin cancer by being fried due to a decreased ozone layer without necessarily leading to global warming.

[ptc]

I can remember when we were heading for an ice age (the fifties )
Margaret Thatcher invented Global warming to get rid of all the coal miners.!

[Grunt]

According to Ms Grunt, I produce more than my fair share of greenhouse gasses.

[Bob Willson]

Well, there was a concensus reached by a group of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - back in 2001. They decided that the Earth IS warming and also that there is enough evidence to say that they are fairly certain it is caused by increases in greenhouse gases:

And another conclusion that they reached was that they needed to study this problem for quite a bit longer. Phew .. job safe for the next 50 years

[mic-d]

But after reading Andrew "Ostrich" Bolts reveiw in the weekend paper, in a hundred years time we will have learned more about the human psyche than global warming, we will have learned that the human condition is to do nothing til the 11th hour, or until it is too late. We will have learned that vandalism is not only willful damage to property, its cultural vandalism in the form of wacko conspiracy theories (like man not landing on the moon) and distortion of historic events. Its vandalism of the scientific process by loonies, governments and individuals for their own short term gain and judging by some of the responses to this thread they certainly have fertile ground and that is as it ever has been and ever will be.
Just to be clear, I worry about the future of the earth (actually I worry about everything), but we are a 3 car/2 person houshold, we run the aircon in summer, we leave lights on unnecessarily. We have 2 methane-producing horses, I have done nothing to kerb my digestive gases, in short we are not pinups of the environmental cause, so don't fob me off as a greenie or biased. I am also a scientist and I'm astonished that people are still confusing the ozone layer and global warming, that people still think that the earth is a closed system and that greater power(s) will soon be coming to sort out all the mess, I hope they are, but we might as well try and do something ourselves!.
Its quite clear that global warming is real, its just confusing it does not equate to hotter temperatures all over the world. Indeed it looks like one of the effects will be a cooling of Europe due to a stagnation of the Gulf stream current. The world is a complex subtle place, it has buffering systems like the oceans which can absorb huge amounts of CO2. A buffering system often performs faultlessly until its capacity is reached and only then can visible and easily measured often spectacular effects be observed. Its like the chemicals in your cordless drill battery that deliver an almost flat plateu of power right up to the last 4 or 5 holes and then exhaust suddenly. I think this has led to some of the early uncertainty about global warming. There's no doubt there are phyisical limits to these buffering systems and certainly if we continue unchecked we're heading for trouble.
I'm also certain that no single energy source is the answer in its current form. The biggest difference we can make overnight is a passive change to our energy use. Just use less. That doesn't necessarily mean going without at home and its things that aren't always obvious. Just imagine if everyone stopped drinking bottled water and reverted to the safe cheap water distributed by energy efficient pipes to your door. Think of the energy used in procesing the bottled water, in making the containers, in shipping the water, in disposing of the waste...
And if people want to argue that we shouldn't ratify the Kyoto protocol and go beyond that because we make such a triffling amount of greenhouse gas in comparison to the China USA India etc, then that's the wrong way of looking at it. We should do it as a leadership role and as a fulcrum to lever change in other countries... One of the biggest hurdles to getting China onboard is Australia's lack of willingness or so I read... but don't believe everything you read
Hmm, well I have to go to the movies so rant off.
Thankyou for reading this far!

:)
Cheers
Michael