Interesting Take on Global Warming

[Jay Miller]

Here is a link to a very interesting video on Global Warming. This is an opposing view to Al Gore and his buddies.

http://www.ernharth.com/2007/04/27/an-inconvenient-truth-is-fiction/

I am not endorsing either view I just think it is always good to hear both sides.

[Joe Blake]

Oh, dear.

Sorry to be a little "blinkered" on the matter, but I got as far as people being "whacked on the head by a 2 by 4" and that was enough. If I had time and no life, I'd transcribe this rather "interesting" little diatribe and dissect it point by point, but I have better things to do, like trying to reduce my carbon footprint while saving money and keeping the economy booming, and trying to keep politics out of democracy (or is it democracy out of politics?).

Joe

[Joe Blake]

I would wonder about the "unbiased" nature of the Ernhart website.

The very first words in the body of the front page:


This site is run by a several financial services veterans who have been questioning the conventional wisdom on many related issues that invariably affect all citizen’s financial well-being.

Are these people who could be seen as being impartially concerned about the environment of the planet?

Hmmm.

Joe

[Mark Parsons]

I don't believe anyone publishing a viewpoint is impartial.

Everyone selling a service / product is pushing a viewpoint for their benefit. Fact of life. To believe in altruism in business is gullibility, at best.

The key point made by this presentation in my mind, is that global warming is not denied, in fact it is acknowledged, just the extent is questioned.

State of the art meteorology can't forecast next week's weather let alone determine the next century's, so they make a valid point.

Contrarianism always provides a good reality check, however, I don't think I would let this group invest much of my money.

Mark

[Frank Flynn]

I hope he's right and all these predictions of Global Warming are overblown. He criticizes Al Gore for looking at the situation and being alarmist, pointing the worst possible outcome.

While he looks at the situation, and he agrees right up front that the global temperature is rising and human activity is contributing to that, but he rejects any projection that isn't positively confirmed by the data as agreed by everyone.

The implication of his presentation seems to be that we don't need to worry because Global Warming might not be as bad as projected; indeed maybe it won't, I hope it isn't but ignoring it is certainly not the answer.

As an example; at the very end of the first part he has a projection that the global temperature will rise in the next century between 1.4 and 5 degrees.
Then he continues that this will be revised to between 1.4 and 4.5 degrees and he offers anecdotal evidence that China has less energy efficient factories and could use significantly less energy than projected - so maybe we'll only have a 1.4 degree rise. Sure maybe they will - they probably will but that doesn't mean we should think everything is OK.

[Rob Beckers]

Didn't catch his name, but the presenter in that video basically does the exact same thing he accuses Gore of: While Gore may be exaggerating the severity of climate change, the presenter takes every opportunity to trivialize it.

I suspect that, as is often the case, the truth is somewhere in between...

-Rob-

P.S. I do agree with the presenter that the media are really milking the 'climate change' subject for all it's worth. While I think exposure is a good thing, this may in the long run not help, when the dire scenarios don't happen quite as painted by the media, causing people to get back to business-as-usual.

[Joe Blake]

State of the art meteorology can't forecast next week's weather let alone determine the next century's, so they make a valid point.

Mark

That perhaps may have been the case, but I have to say that the forecasting IS becoming increasingly (possibly even alarmingly) more accurate.

However, a couple of points which I think mitigate the thrust of the argument. Firstly, climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction. Weather is a much more local phenomenon, subject to "smaller" variables.

Secondly, my interest in climate change was inspired by an article written (or at least published in a book) in 1962, and that article was based on data from the 50's if I recall. (I still have a reprinted copy of the book and I'll see if I can find it). The predictions contained in the article were pretty well spot on and for my money, prediction is the key note of scientific method.

Thirdly, I have grave doubts about the "economic" argument, which seems to run along the lines of we have a choice between addressing climate change versus maintaining our booming economy, and therefore trying to change our way of living is not acceptable, because of possible economic damage. (Our Prime Monster has done nothing but trumpet that mantra ad nauseam since he was finally hit over the head hard enough to grudgingly admit that climate change DOES exist.)

However, it would seem that climate prediction is much more accurate than predicting social and economic trends. I bought my first computer in 1979, and people asked me why are you wasting your money on that box of bits? And quite frankly, I couldn't come up with an answer that satisfied them. I KNEW it was the way of the future, but I couldn't give any concrete examples.

Further, if such a thing were possible, if I (in 2007) was able to jump into a time machine and go back to 1979, and address myself of that time and say well in the 21st Century, the computer is going to be totally ubiquitous, using it you can have discussions with people around the world (even those who don't speak your language) on almost any imaginable topic, have instant, free access to satellite photography of almost any portion of the surface of the globe, I would scarcely be able to believe myself. Even sitting here in the 21st Century, surrounded by the very technology that earlier generations scoffed at, I find it hard to get my head around occasionally. However, one thing I would find extremely hard to believe would be the amount of employment that the computer generated. The amount of economic power delivered.

So in comparing the accuracy of 1950's climatic predictions against the societal and economic predictions of the 1970's, climate wins hands down.

My final point is that given the rapid rate of change today (and I mean TODAY) to say that saying a possible economic downturn is a valid reason to not tackle climate change is, if nothing else, admitting to a failure of vision for the future.

I think in 5 years time, there will be such unpredicted radical changes in society that the "economic" argument will become pretty irrelevant. (Well, if truth be known it's an irrelevant argument now.) (One only has to look for example at the phenomenon of "virtual societies". Second Life et al.

http://secondlife.com/

What changes will this wreak on society? I shudder to think, but the options are numerous, but WILL predict that in 5 years, we'll be saying "Wow, I didn't see THAT coming".)

I have to say that I'm actually a lot more pessimistic than many people, and I think Al Gore's view is far closer to reality than further from it.

Joe

[Rob Beckers]

For those interested where all those (recent) news and documentary reports come from, with their numbers and probabilities, you can read them straight from the horse's mouth in the latest IPCC report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html).

-Rob-

[Jay Miller]

Another article of interest:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Comments?

[Joe Blake]

Andrew, I find that rather hard to swallow.

Provided we're all still here (ie on this board) maybe we'll come back in 5 years and see what your views are.

Be nice if it were true.

A bit more about Augie Auer

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/30/1626112.htm

And just to be even-handed a rebuttal

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/augie_auer.htm

Joe

[Jay Miller]

And the debate continues:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af&p=2

Comments?

[Mark Parsons]

Greetings Jay,

There is a lot of material in the National Post's Deniers Series of articles. The common theme is that each of the scientists interviewed don't deny climate change, just some of the sources and extents. Some may also argue the extent of anthropogenic (man made) influences.

The scientific community is very much a democracy. Any data open for interpretation will create differing opinions. Politics also plays a very large part in the scientific community. Folks that stray too far from the opinion norms can lose their careers. So some dissention can be suppressed in this manner. This also explains some of the retractions and apologies printed by the author of this series.

Irregardless. Even IF the anthropogenic influence of burning fossil carbon was not altering our climate detrimentally, we are burning a LIMITED resource. If we are to keep this planet habitable for our children and our children's children, concentrating on clean sustainable behaviors and practices is a must. Denying this sustainability need is jeopardizing our descendants lives.

My little rant for the day. ;)

Regards,
Mark

[Rob Beckers]

Well put Mark!
I was contemplating how to reply, but you took the words right out of my mouth, and more eloquent than I would have...

-Rob-

[Joe Blake]

Our "leaders" seem to be seeing two problems (greenhouse effect and consumption of limited resources) but they are really intertwined (or two horns on the same devil), and would dearly love us (the gullible prats who vote for them) to see that they are working to fix one without bothering too much about the other.

Fat chance.

Anyway with an election coming up in Australia this year, it's getting VERY interesting. I haven't seen so many backflips and changes of direction since "Cinderella on Ice".

Joe

[Stellar Gellar]

i wonder what's obama going to do now about the green issu.:wondering:

[Stellar Gellar]

i wonder what's obama going to do now about the green issu.:wondering:

seems like alot of the green programs funds will be cut to help save the economy.

[Joe Blake]

That perhaps may have been the case, but I have to say that the forecasting IS becoming increasingly (possibly even alarmingly) more accurate.

However, a couple of points which I think mitigate the thrust of the argument. Firstly, climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction. Weather is a much more local phenomenon, subject to "smaller" variables.

Secondly, my interest in climate change was inspired by an article written (or at least published in a book) in 1962, and that article was based on data from the 50's if I recall. (I still have a reprinted copy of the book and I'll see if I can find it). The predictions contained in the article were pretty well spot on and for my money, prediction is the key note of scientific method.

Thirdly, I have grave doubts about the "economic" argument, which seems to run along the lines of we have a choice between addressing climate change versus maintaining our booming economy, and therefore trying to change our way of living is not acceptable, because of possible economic damage. (Our Prime Monster has done nothing but trumpet that mantra ad nauseam since he was finally hit over the head hard enough to grudgingly admit that climate change DOES exist.)

However, it would seem that climate prediction is much more accurate than predicting social and economic trends. I bought my first computer in 1979, and people asked me why are you wasting your money on that box of bits? And quite frankly, I couldn't come up with an answer that satisfied them. I KNEW it was the way of the future, but I couldn't give any concrete examples.

Further, if such a thing were possible, if I (in 2007) was able to jump into a time machine and go back to 1979, and address myself of that time and say well in the 21st Century, the computer is going to be totally ubiquitous, using it you can have discussions with people around the world (even those who don't speak your language) on almost any imaginable topic, have instant, free access to satellite photography of almost any portion of the surface of the globe, I would scarcely be able to believe myself. Even sitting here in the 21st Century, surrounded by the very technology that earlier generations scoffed at, I find it hard to get my head around occasionally. However, one thing I would find extremely hard to believe would be the amount of employment that the computer generated. The amount of economic power delivered.

So in comparing the accuracy of 1950's climatic predictions against the societal and economic predictions of the 1970's, climate wins hands down.

My final point is that given the rapid rate of change today (and I mean TODAY) to say that saying a possible economic downturn is a valid reason to not tackle climate change is, if nothing else, admitting to a failure of vision for the future.

I think in 5 years time, there will be such unpredicted radical changes in society that the "economic" argument will become pretty irrelevant. (Well, if truth be known it's an irrelevant argument now.) (One only has to look for example at the phenomenon of "virtual societies". Second Life et al.

http://secondlife.com/

What changes will this wreak on society? I shudder to think, but the options are numerous, but WILL predict that in 5 years, we'll be saying "Wow, I didn't see THAT coming".)

I have to say that I'm actually a lot more pessimistic than many people, and I think Al Gore's view is far closer to reality than further from it.

Joe


Just wandering back through the forum and came across this thread. In my post (above) I mentioned predictions in 5 years, and it's now 5 years later. So where are we? My post was written pre "Global Finance Crisis" - no one saw that coming! And in 2012, we're still suffering the effects, waiting for Greece (inter alia) to make up its mind what it's going to do.

Didn't see that coming.

Since 2007 Australia was been suffering one very severe drought (up to 10 years in some places) after another, with a couple of pretty severe bushfire seasons, and the likelihood of another one. The breaking of the drought was just that - a break - a compound fracture with severe lacerations and collateral damage type break, which saw fatal floods, in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, with costs in the billions of dollars. As I write the news is telling me that three-quarters of the state of New South Wales is under water, or under threat of same. Near Canberra, our national capital, some of the farmers are reporting receiving their March average monthly rainfall in the first few hours of the month.:eek:

Some of the people interviewed for the news hadn't finished cleaning up from the previous flood(s) when they were hit again.

Closer to home, in Western Australia, the drought broke in one of the worst possible ways, during the grain harvest. Whilst in volume it was set to be a record harvest, because of the unseasonal rain, some of the farmers lost a lot of value because the grain started to sprout, rendering it unfit for human consumption.

And then when one travels overseas and around the globe a lot of of "unseasonal weather events" have taken place.

I just wonder how much evidence people need to convince them that perhaps things are not all tickety-boo on the global climate front.

However, I have to say some people DID see that coming. :wondering:

Joe

[Joe Blake]

SAID HANRAHAN by John O'Brien

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.


The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.


"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."


"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.


And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."


"The crops are done; ye'll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
They're singin' out for rain.


"They're singin' out for rain," he said,
"And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.


"There won't be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place
As I came down to Mass."


"If rain don't come this month," said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If rain don't come this week."


A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.


"We want an inch of rain, we do,"
O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke "maintained" we wanted two
To put the danger past.


"If we don't get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."


In God's good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.


And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.


It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.


And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."


And stop it did, in God's good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.


And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o'er the fence.


And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place
Went riding down to Mass.


While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.


"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."



Joe:D

[Torry Jackson]

^^ Good one :) read it on middlemiss and my fav. bookmarked ;)

[Marvin jordan]

^^ Good one :) read it on middlemiss and my fav. bookmarked ;)

This thread is 7 years old. New things are here try reading them.

[Joe Blake]

Five years ago, I think it was the case that China was becoming the powerhouse of the planetary economic machine. Now the world waits to see how China is going.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/rba-governor-glenn-stevens-says-downturn-inevitable-20131209-2z01i.html

Australia, and certainly Western Australia, is tied to China far too tightly, because of its reliance on mining iron ore and natural gas, inter alia.

And in Britain today:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/01/january-uk-wettest-winter-month-250-years

Late last year I purchased an automated weather station which gathered data I can download. This shows that from 1 January , to 31 January, 2014, 16 days have been over 35 degrees, with 4 of those exceeding 40 degrees, and one peaking at 45. This is an average of 33.96 degrees approximately. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, the mean temperature for January is 30.4 degrees at Kalamunda, which is about 5 km along the track from Lesmurdie. In January there were only 5 days at or below this temperature. No wonder more people are buying air conditioners.

Rain also seems to be in rather short supply these days.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/saxeharp/rainfall1402_zps659f6493.jpg

And only a couple of weeks ago our newly minted Prime Minister was urging the world to increase trade and reduce taxes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/tony-abbott-delivers-keynote-speech-at-world/5216324

Sounds like the days of the Reagan era.


Somehow I don't see that too much has changed. :huh: New perhaps, but not changed.

Joe

[Rob Beckers]

Joe, what weather station are you using?

B.t.w. what strikes me from your graph is the very large variability from year to year in rainfall for your area.

Of course, up here in Canada we loooove global warming! :nuts:
What's not to like: Only 4 months of winter instead of 6, and the best wine growing regions of North America are slowly creeping over the border into Canada...

-RoB-

[Joe Blake]

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=XC0348

http://www.jaycar.com.au/products_uploaded/productLarge_13260.jpg

There's been a marked downward trend in rainfall for many years - decades even.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/saxeharp/general10/rainfall_zps6417569b.jpg (http://s82.photobucket.com/user/saxeharp/media/general10/rainfall_zps6417569b.jpg.html)

It seems to be linked to the amount of tree clearing early in the 20th century, for agriculture. Because of transpiration of moisture from plants, clearing vegetation affects the relative humidity, which reduces the chance of rainfall. :sad:

Joe

[Rebecca Barnfield]

Thanks for the post. Global Warming is still occurring and most of us still continue to ruin the environment.

[Ralph Day]

Because Joe Blake is in the thread...

[Joe Blake]

Aaarrrgh, Joe Blakes are everywhere.

I didn't half get a shock when I saw how old this thread is and how long I've been putting my foot in my mouth.

So how is the planet tottering along? Not very well sadly. In Australia, we've had fires, floods, cyclones, droughts. Since 2017 there have been two "freak" storms, one in South Australia and one in Western Australia which demolished km of high voltage transmission lines literally leaving thousands of people in the dark, some for a couple of weeks. The storm in WA came so close to me, I watched it as it progressed via the Bureau of Meteorology's weather radar, and I was lucky by about 10 km. Phew!

https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.63%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$widt h_756%2C$x_0%2C$y_194/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/ebb59878b1a0cf03c53a006c5c9b7fffffede746

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-19/kalgoorlie-blackout-explainer/103365870

Around the rest of the world, well, the northern hemisphere is suffering severe cold snaps, with (again) storms demolishing power infrastructure and putting populations in the dark.

But on the upside ... well, I'll have a look round and see if I can find one.