What Do We Think About Climate Change

Frosty! The lunacy of believing Nostradamus indicates that your wry humour (sic) is intact. Funny, tho - Did the "prophet" say anything about a ranting Aussie? Will he STFU on disparate threads before the world ends?

 

Nice to meet you all

I am punting (in a Melbourne Cup "Balsatico" sense) that the USA and Japan have already fallen but are too drunk on credit to know they are down and out.

 

hehehe and Mark is a minority party? I will send you a PM saying "Told You So" when confirmed... Some 'sceptic *******' are still in Egypt heavily drugged "on De Nial"...

My Lovely Lady fancies the Bart Cummings stable for 1,2 or 3 but I like your confidence, Oh heck mark will be pissed...

 

Now,
What about this temperature graph based on oxygen 18 isotope ratio?

 

R M Carter:
THE MYTH OF DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007 05-03 AusIMM corrected.pdf

From the Abstract:
"Human-caused global warming has become the environmental cause
celebre of the early 21st century. The strong warming alarmist camp
currently includes the United Nations, most Western governments, most
of the free press, many large corporations (including Enron, before it
failed), the major churches, most scientific organisations and a large
portion of general public opinion. This phalanx of support
notwithstanding there is no scientific consensus as to the danger of
human-induced climate change. There is, therefore, a strong conflict
between the level of public alarm and its scientific justification. How can
this be?"

 

But what time on the 22 dec 2012, I have things to do. I need to make sure the credit card is max for one,-- and no point in having a full tank of gas.

Armageddon will be a busy day.

 

"HFC-23 is the byproduct of HCFC-22 production. HCFC-22 is a refrigerant and strong ozone depletor, ostensibly banned by the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Developing countries, however, were given a loophole arrangement under the Montreal Protocol (MP) specifically for HCFC-22, so while most countries in the world with any degree of industrial activity have agreed to abide by the MP, developing countries do not have to meet HCFC-22 phase-out targets. Because of this loophole, as a cheap and effective refrigerant HCFC-22 continues to be an important industrial chemical, produced in especially high volume by "rich developing" countries such as China, India and Korea.

Both HCFC-22 and HFC-23 are also strong greenhouse gasses, but HFC-23 has a 270-year lifetime in the atmosphere, HCFC-22 only 12 years, and thus HFC-23 has over ten times the Global Warming Potential of HCFC-22 at 14,800 times CO2-equivalent (see Table TS.2 in the WGI Technical Summary of IPCC AR4). Those seeking to fund CDM projects jumped early at the chance to abate the release of HFC-23 to the atmosphere. It turned out to be quite easy (read: cheap) to install capture-and-burn equipment on HCFC-22 factories, and with a ton of HFC-23 burned being the equivalent of over 14,000 tons of CO2 prevented from reaching the atmosphere, the race to fund HFC-23 burn projects was on.

The problem from an international policy perspective is that producers of HCFC-22 now make more money burning HFC-23 than they do selling HCFC-22. Imagine what being paid handsomely to burn your waste does to your incentive to reduce your waste. If your waste stream costs you to dispose of it, you might try to improve your production to reduce waste and thus save money. And even if you did get paid to burn your waste, it might make financial sense to reduce waste anyway if your efficiency improvements paid more in reduced operating expenses than burning waste generated in income. But neither is the case for HCFC-22 factories. For them a double financial incentive now exists: keep making HCFC-22 in copious amounts at a profit, which will produce HFC-23 as a now-valuable waste product. And since HCFC-22 producers need not even lift a finger to burn their HFC-23 (those funding the CDM project fund the capture and burn device), any incentive for switching away from the ozone-depleting HCFC-22 as a refrigerant is also destroyed."

More at: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_land_of_unintended_consequ_1.html

Cheers.

 

"China took a big leap into the U.S. renewable energy market Thursday, putting up $1.5 billion for a 36,000-acre (14,569-hectare) wind farm in Texas with the power to light up 180,000 homes.

The project is a joint venture with U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private equity firm, Austin, Texas-based Cielo Wind Power LP and Shenyang Power Group of China.

The announcement Thursday shows how much China's own wind industry has burgeoned and comes two days after U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told lawmakers that the U.S. was falling behind China and others in alternative energy investment."

More at: http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/i.../125683462583140.xml&storylist=new_topstories


Wind energy stimulus dollars spent overseas:
"More than eight out of 10 US stimulus dollars spent on wind energy farms have gone to foreign companies, according to a report by the Washington-based Investigative Report Workshop, a non-profit journalist group."

Read more at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4201676-c4f2-11de-8d54-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1


Cheers

 

Annual global precipitation anomalies

Planet doesn't seem to be drying: In the last 100 years global rain has, if something, increased. See NOAA's graph.

Cheers

 

Guillermo,
But where and how? - - - - Nicely spread out gently as needed over farmlands - one can live in hope - - or - - DUMPED in torrents at the wrong time and wrong place wreaking destruction and disaster in its wake - - or - - solidly precipitating over mid oceanic regions?:!::?:

 

In all the 'debate' over the halon gases back in the 80's and 90's, I never once heard anyone offer a plausible way for these gases to get into the stratosphere. They are, after all, about 11X heavier than air, so that they naturally sink down to ground level rather than float up to the stratosphere. Their constituent elemental gases are lighter than air, of course. But they do not break down into their constituents in the lower strata of the atmosphere; not enough (or any) high-energy UV down here. They have to (somehow) get to the stratosphere in their heavy state whereupon they can break down, and only then do they become ozone depleters.

But how do they get there?

Jimbo

 

Yeah it's a bit like the talk of 'Global Warming', isn't it? If the Northern hemisphere cooled by 10 degrees, but the southern heated by 10 degrees, by the averaging method, we'd have NO 'Global Warming'! But I bet the change would be dramatic!

This is not just a mind game, because in many respects this is exactly what happened during the 20th century (though not by 10 degrees).

Jimbo

 

without reading the whole thread forgive me if its been brought up before but watching discovery channal
i learned how plm 10.000 years back the polar ice melted and via the med filled the black sea creating the story of noach

so much water i than figgered possibly have coursed moses passage opening the water in egypt as well, what do you think?
girlfrend says it may but pope will be to bissy with condoms

 

As I understand it the melting ice will not rise the ocean level up to Ararat again. The melting of sea ice will not affect the level, only the land ice will cause a rise in level (whitch is bad enought for many areas, the Netherlands for instance).
A bigger problem will be food supply and a mass movement of peaple caused by change of making a decent living and income.

There are a few more living on this planet today than it was at Noach´s time and it will probably not be possible to fill up your boat with only animals and say..."sorry mate´s but I´m off to start a new civilisation"...

And if the ice melted at the time of Noach causing the flooding, Moses was a few years later and the ocean level was then more to today´s levels, otherwise Sinai desert would have been flooded and the passage much longer.

So if..and when...hope the pope has enough condoms to bouli a life raft.

 

Don't be worried. Even the IPCC predicts a rise of sea level of around 50 cm in the next 100 years.

And it is even possible it will descend

Cheers.