The Green dilemma
April 30th, 2007 at 6:38 am by David FarrarThe Greens have managed to get recognition of the consequences of climate change high up the political agenda. And the UN IPCC is the body recognised as being the mainstream consensus in this area.
Now what are they talking about as ways to reduce greenhouse gases:
As well as plans for more nuclear power, genetically modified biofuels and carbon capture and storage, the report sets out a vision of the future that mixes existing policies, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy from wind and wave farms, and more futuristic ideas for hydrogen car fleets and “intelligent” buildings which can control energy use.
Yes the first two things listed are nuclear power and genetic modification. Both things the Greens have opposed and tried to whip up hysteria against.
This just reinforces for me that in some ways the Greens and their allies are actually very conservative politicians. They oppose anything new. They oppose any risk, no matter what the benefits associated with that risk. In many ways they seek to have NZ in a time warp.
I look forward to hearing from the Greens how the IPCC is 100% correct on analysing the problems of climate change, yet 100% wrong on the solutions.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:46 am
The dilemma they have is Green policies are very expensive to implement and will hurt the poor disproportionately. For instance getting rid of inefficient cars and buses in major cities will hurt poor people who can only afford old inefficient cars. Us tories drive new cars so we would be quite happy to get rid of the oldies. Put a policy of getting rid of old cars and the Labour Party gets difficult. So while the Labour Party talks big it acts very small.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
What about our west coast coal mine?
David, the findings of fact about climate change can be accepted as scientific fact, yet the solution proposals necessarily contain the balancing of competing values, so there is nothing inconsistent with accepting the science and disagreeing with the value of the remedy.
What would be inconsistent is if they agreed that the IPCC was 100% correct on analysing the problems of climate change, yet 100% wrong on the solutions, by claiming the solutions would not help the -climate change- problem. In that case they would be accepting some of their science but not all, and I doubt that will be what they say.
The solutions will help the problem, so in my opinion the IPCC have got the science correct 100% or close to that. But, this does not mean that I have to pretent the solutions do not have environmental negatives aside from climate change, and the IPCC does state otherwise.
So, the argument (and ‘dilemma’) as I see it is the value of the alternatives and their advantages/disadvantages, versus our present consumer attitudes It is a discussion that has to be had however.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I wouldn’t say Greens are conservative. They just have some conflicting desires. Naturally nuclear is friendlier on greenhouse emissions. But it’s not on radioactive waste, mining, or the potential hazards of a leak. Also having nuclear plants could encourage nuclear weapon development, although that’s really a foreign policy issue, not really something NZ would either do, or need to do. In fact we don’t need nuclear power at all yet.
As for GE, I tend to agree that they have a hangup that may seem alarmist. But when you get down to it, they’re not against GE, they just believe in a much higher safety margin for testing it. Which I don’t have a problem with, so long as it’s not so high that it means nothing can ever reach practical use. Currently it does seem to be too high a threshold.
I don’t think you’d find many greenies getting bitter on biofuel generated from GE crops, if it had actually passed their rigorous standards. And the other ‘futuristic’ ideas are totally their bag.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Rather than get into yet another ‘is it real or isn’t it’ debate about climate change, the issue raised by DPF is a fair one. The greens have to face facts that their possibly preferred options for the environment are neither cost effective, nor efficeint. Technology moves rapidly and now they find that the best actual response to the (supposed) causes of climate change are indeed, in conflict with their own values. A case of the cure being worse than the illness.
JC – to give an extreme example: after vsiting Amish communities in Pennsylvania, one can see the perfect environmentally friendly community. Compare that to our lifestyle which is rich in technolgy and offers a higher standard of living (IMO)and yet leaves a considerable carbon footprint. Is the only way to reduce that footprint through use of technology, or complete lack of? There are the two extremes, how do you compare those two different worlds. I know where I would rather live.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
You’ll find there is serious debate within Green parties worldwide over nuclear power and some back it. Green Parties in Scandanevia have voted for replacing coal power with nuclear, for example. In many ocuntries, nuclear is clearly the best large scale alternative to thermal.
But its really a nonissue in New Zealand. Modern commerical nuke reactors are at least 750MW, the new Finnish one is 1600MW – that compares to total thermal generation capacity in New Zealand of 2600MW, (10 generators including including E3P), which will be NZ’s largest thermal generator at 385MW. New Zealand would only need two to replace all thermal generation. Now, these are single reactors, they have to go offline (i think its about a third of the time) for maintainence and there’s always the possibltiy of catasrophic long-term outages… You can’t have such a large part of your electricity basket dominated by only a couple of eggs, if something happens, you’re screwed.
Secondly, nuclear power needs scale to reduce costs, regulartory, security, transport, expert workers etc etc, that make setting up just one or two reactors prohibitively expensive.
Thirdly, you’ve got distribution problems we’ve such a huge amount of electricity coming from probalby just one site (with a couple of reactors at one place to save on costs).
Fourthly, it only takes one smallish leak, like the one in Japan a few years ago to make the whole thing unusable for years. Yes, the chances of an incident are tiny but the chances would be larger in a small coutnry with no experinece with reactors and the costs of a incident are huge.
The real future for NZ is clearly in wind power – you’ve got diverse sites and many seperate units (a 1000 turbines in a few dozen sites and you could shut down all the thermal plants), so they can be close the place of consumption, they need no fuel, and at good sites the turbines work and the wind blows at optimal levels about as often as thermal plants run at max output.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Craig, you are exactly right. What you assert is at the heart of the debate in my opinion. I too enjoy my computer, my way of life etc etc.
My point, is that we can do it with less of a footprint (both in terms of carbon and other sources). I believe that changed attitudes would see considerably less wastage, meaning renewable sources could cater for the bulk of our needs. Short of that, sources aside from (say) coal could be harnessed, and technology could help us eliminate much of the risk and environmental impact of those sources. But it is worth setting the bar high, given what is ultimately at stake.
I am not against these other sources per se.
cheers
I also agree with what Sam said, but add that wind can only ever be part of a much bigger picture (which I think is implicit in what Sam is saying anyway).
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Nuclear power will never be an option for NZ, for many reasons and only a few of those are idealogical. Safety: earthquakes, volcanoes etc.. waste management: 10,000 years! I have been to Kiev and drove reasonably close to Chernobyl….scariest place on earth.
In Scotland, the projected cost of dismantling a nuclear reactor is hitting 10 times it’s construction cost…and they can’t dismantle it, because of the health risk! rock and a hard place.
If our weather is going to be so unpredictable over the next however many centuries, then we can’t put all our eggs in the wind power basket. The oceans will always be there, but we haven’t the technology as yet, to harness it efficeintly.
As much as it may suck, the reality is we are at the mercy of so called fossil fuels for a long time yet. Any other option has dire consequences for the economy, the environment (harm by a different source is still harm) and our quality of life. The technology for cleaner burning of fossil fuels has lead to quantum improvement in emmission quality, over the past 2 decades. I think we should still be investing further in that technology, which will at least have immediate returns.
On a different but related issue:
Vote:Now the EU wants to change what cows are fed so they will reduce their flatulence.(overseas website this morning) Upon reading that, the climate change advocates lost me forever.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“the reality is we are at the mercy of so called fossil fuels … Any other option has dire consequences for the economy, the environment (harm by a different source is still harm) and our quality of life”
Not necessarily, with changes to attitudes and improvements in technology. Sure, fossil fuels will play a big part for years to come, but other sources are viable now, and will become cheaper when compared with the side effects of maintaining the status quo. And I am not concerned with short term economic costs when weighed against long terms environmental gains.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Firstly: the IPCC aren’t necessarily environmentalists – they’re scientists who have happened to arrive at a similar conclusion using scientific methods – regardless of any ideology. So if the greens in New Zealand have opposed the use of nuclear power and GE crops, it’s no “dilemma” for them to disagree with the IPCC on some of the solutions to climate change – especially when Nuclear power is far from being pragmatic, let alone a necessity, in the New Zealand context.
“look forward to hearing from the Greens how the IPCC is 100% correct on analysing the problems of climate change, yet 100% wrong on the solutions.”
This is hyperbole, plain and simple. Firstly, obviously the greens are going to disagree with the IPCC on some things and agree on others. They have almost no connection save for the fact that they believe AGW to be fact. Conversely, they have a major point of difference in that one group are scientist and the other group is political. So is it really that surprising that the IPCC emphasises scientific/technological solutions to AGW and the Greens advocate social/political, as well scientific/technological solutions?
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Oh when oh when are the fools going to realise that CO2 is not a pollutant.
James being one of those fools especially when he states “the findings of fact about climate change can be accepted as scientific fact”.
They are very far from fact. Fact is proven, without any shred of doubt. Climate Change theory is just that, theory and far from proven at all.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
PJ- I understand the point you make reagrding the scientific v’s social/political agenda, in the context you do.
I do think it fair to clarify that the IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It’s sole purpose is to act as a clearing house/distibutor of information supplied to it, by it’s members. It is also worth noting that it’s agenda covers the environment(effects of future climate chang) & the socio-economic impact of future climate change (including the impact any fixes have on these)
The fact that it accepts submissions only from members, does leave it open to accusations of only presenting one side of the story, which it pushes with gusto. A truly scientific organisation would present a balanced view, based on fact, or at least acknolwdge that the ‘science’ is unproven. To believe there is no political/lobbying input in to the IPCC would be naive.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Whaleoil, how many are left in the ‘it ain’t true’ camp? Give me a percentage chief?
It not only CAN be accepted as fact, but it HAS BEEN accepted as fact! The battle for public opinion finished some time ago, but dinosaurs with views like yours sure are entertaining – so keep them coming.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Whoa – James. Did I fall asleep and miss something substantial? when was the Climate Change issue settled? The one issue that can be taken as fact is that the earths climate has always changed for reasons beyond man’s comprehension and it probably always will. The issues STILL up for discussion is just how much influence mankind is having on the process at present and into the future.
Vote:To claim the issue is settled is astonishing.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
This from wikipedia
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.”
Sounds like a pretty science based organisatin to me.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
PJ – from the IPCC website:
“The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.”
Therefore, as I stated earlier, it acts as a clearing house for information/results/theories etc..from it’s members. It also decides what it will publish and when.
I’m happy to stand by my previous post.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Now I have to agree with James C.
Craig said “the earths climate has always changed for reasons beyond man’s comprehension”
If beyond comprehension means incapable of understanding that’s nonsense, the effects that increasing GHG concentrations are having a descernable effect is not seriously debatable.
Climate changes throughout the Earths history are comperhensable and the drivers of historical climate change are reasonably well understood.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
James, If I use your definitions of fact then in the 1970′s you would have been crying about Global Cooling and the “facts” that proved that…and of course that public opinion had accepted it…
Climate Change is real no doubts about that, to deny that would be to deny life, however what I challenge is the fact that it is Anthropogenic. I especially reject is the “fact” that CO2 is a pollutant which it most clearly is not. Without CO2 we would all be dead along with all the plants and everything else.
Despite what you may claim ACC is far from proven and time will eventually prove.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Yes James – how many are left in the ‘denier’ camp who have consistently denigrated the IPCC as corrupt and ‘anti-life’?
They have now been shown up as the ignorant, science denying fools that they are.
Now let the REAL debate begin.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
The IPCC audits global research and combines all the work conducted on climate research to produce as accurate a picture as is possible about what is happening and what is most likely to happen across a range of future scenarios.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“I especially reject is the “fact” that CO2 is a pollutant which it most clearly is not.”
That’s your assertion, is this the justification for that assersion?
“Without CO2 we would all be dead along with all the plants and everything else.”
If so, using your definition, phosphates, nitrates, and other fertiliser runoff can’t be pollutants.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
James/Andrew: I think you will find there are still a lot of “us” out there and that is one of the reasons I came back to this country and love it. The right to debate, to have discenting opinions and to agree to disagree. Free thought, long may it continue……by the way, you’re wrong
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Whaleoil –
Based on your argument regarding cardon emissions I could argue against lead-free petrol because “without [Lead] we would all be dead”. Similarly, you could argue that arsenic isn’t a poison because trace amounts are naturally present in the human body.
Its true that carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and vital part of the Earth’s living systems but its moronic to argue that, therefore, injecting a whole lot more of it into the air and, thereby, setting off the most rapid period of climate change known in history without any end in sight is OK.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Was going to say something similar to what Sam just wrote. Well said Sam
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“you’re wrong”
Vote:In what way? provide evidence please.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
fair enough Whaleoil, Craig.
So, are you in complete disagreement with the IPCC?
And I too agree with Sam just said.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“the effects that increasing GHG concentrations are having a descernable effect is not seriously debatable.”
Being a left wing socialist commie pinko, I feel a little odd for saying this, but whaleoil is right.
Carbon levels are currently the highest they’ve ever been in the history of the planet, yet is the global temperature following that scale? no, it’s getting warmer for sure, but it should be a LOT warmer if CO2 is responsible. Not only that but the evidence linking CO2 to temperature changes has been wrongly interpretted. Historically the changes in CO2 trail the changes in temperature, IE the temperature changes cause the increases in CO2, not the other way around. The temperatures in the troposphere have not been consistant with an AGW effect, pointing to another cause for the current warming.
so..
A. CO2 being the cause of climate change was a flimsy theory right from the start, since it’s a pretty non-effectual GHG anyway
B. There’s no real evidence that is CO2 is responsible.
C. There’s evidence that NO GHG is responsible.
D. There’s a far more plausible theory out there IE sunspot cycles.
E. There’s actually some evidence (though it’s not entirely rocksolid) to back it up.
The “evidence” pointing to CO2 being the cause of the current warming is based on correlation, but correlation does not equal causality. The IPCC is mostly interested in making predictions based on the current warming conditions, it’s not entirely made up of scientists, they don’t conduct all their own research, it is a political institution.
Why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility that the big, angry ball of fire in the sky is what causes the earth to heat up?
Dispite all this, I still think the world should go carbon neutral.. Why? Because we have no idea what the effects of having such a high carbon level is, it’s wreckless and irresponsible. What gives industries, that I may not support, the right to decide what level of carbon I’m breathing in every day? The air belongs to everyone who breaths it. We should have the right to decide what goes inside our bodies.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
See Sam and that is the problem, you are making the assumption that CO2 alone is the cause of “Global Warming” and that injecting a whole lot more into the air “set off” AGW, which is most definately did not.
You forget about Solar Flares, you forget that the Earth is still substantially cooler than during several periods of the earths past.
The science is not settled and most definately not fact or proven.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The thing that bother me the most is that some of these findings are from computer modelling similiar to how the weather is currently forecast.
Vote:A coin toss or tarot cards would be just as accurate.
As a basis for an international system of taxation it needs to be a little more convincing.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
JAMES:
“fair enough Whaleoil, Craig.
So, are you in complete disagreement with the IPCC?”
Not at all ….to be that definitive would ruin my arguement. We cannot yet deal in absolutes in regards to this issue. So, no. I don’t disagree with the IPCC. I think the debate is still ongoing. It surprises me that anyone could believe that the science is 100% concrete, when so many scientists have discenting views.
ANDREW W:
“you’re wrong”
In what way? provide evidence please.
Andrew, If you read my post, you will realise that the last sentence was meant as a joke. I apologise for my warped sense of humour. cheers
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Whaleoil –
I’m making no such assumption, I’m simply pointing out the silliness of the ‘carbon dioxide is great, so lets have some more’ argument.
I do not forget about solar flares, I’m well aware that studies have found no link between them and the current rise in temperatures. I’m also aware that solar output (which is probably what you actually mean) has been shown not to be linked to current warming.
I do not forget that the earth has been substantially hotter and colder than it is now, so what? what’s your point? Are you saying any temperature is OK? are you saying that changing climate does not carry with it costs for humanity as if our societies and economies some how exist seperate from the climate?
I love how although you reckon “The science is not settled and most definately not fact or proven” you are allowed to make definiative scientific statements like ” injecting a whole more CO2 in to the air…most definately did not” set of climate change… especially when your “definate” statements fly in the face of the weight of scientific evidence.
David S
On one hand we have the largest assembly of climate experts in the world saying ‘increased GHG emissions by humanity are warming and will continue to warm Earth’s atomsphere at an unprecendented rate with significant impacts on climate and, thereby, on humanity’. On the other we have you saying “getting warmer for sure, but it should be a LOT warmer if CO2 is responsible” – who says? SOunds like you’re just pulling that from your arse… certainly never heard even a supposed expert denier like Augie Auer argue that kind of rubbish.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Neil, clearly you are better informed than the 99% of climate scientists who believe AGW to be a serious fact. We should all bow to your superior knowledge and intellect whilst casting of those great evils, that with such pernicious deception, plague modern civilisation – science and reason.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Craig:
“We cannot yet deal in absolutes in regards to this issue.”
Hmm, I would have thought there are very few areas in scientific knowledge that could be dealt with in absolute terms. And in many areas there is no consensus. Yet we have to draw the line somewhere. will still have to act on scientific knowledge when it doesn’t have the status of absolute truth.
Take for example the evolution debate. Now, as with AGW the majority of biological scientists believe it to be the best hypothesis to explain how human beings came to be what we are. Also analogous to the global warming debate are the dissenters, or the scientists that promote “intelligent design” as an alternative. In the AGW debate, the deniers occupy the place of the “intelligent designers” in the evolution debate. They are a small fringe group of scientists largely funded by very wealthy people/organisations with a specific agenda – In the former it is largely oil companies, and in the later case it’s conservative Christian businessmen.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Seems this thread has gone way off track. We’ve gone from Green dilemma to full out bitching about Climate change. Oh well, in for a penny…
If you are going to make vitriolic comments about a persons viewpoint, common sense says that you don’t include include comments such as:
“99% of climate scientists who believe AGW to be a serious fact.”
that can be so easily dismissed as rubbish. Any reasoned person researching the subject for 10 seconds will find out that you are lying and you’ll look foolish.
Only the arrogance of man can turn a point of view into a fact.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
PJ, push my buttons why don’t you.
I was happy to leave the creation part of the debate out of this as I know it upsets some people, but wow, you have just said a mouthfull.
So, those who believe there is more to climate change than human fault, are now the same as thos who believe in creationism….My God, I hope so.
That means that those who have bought lock stock and barrell into man made climate change are darwinists? Love it. I now know exactly what side to occupy, just on principal.
We are to be called “deniers”. We are to be publicly decried & persecuted for our views, just as Christians still are.
It may be a while since you went to school, but have you read any of Darwin? His last writings state his regret at the whole evolution issue he started and he states himself, that it was bad science. Of course, those who had bought into the joke could not back track.
Darwinism/evolution has never been proven, and it’s inventor says it’s bollocks.
IMO, Just like man made global warming theory. What a perfect anology.
You poor GODLESS bastard. I’ll say a prayer for your soul.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Comparing AGW deniers to ID proponants is…. pretty cheap, and pointless. Apples and oranges.
Saying that the scientific community is in full agreement about the cause of current climate changes is an outright lie or at best a misconception.
Although it has not been pointed out to a great extent, the evidence of the link between co2 and global temperature as shown by the ice samples collected and shown in Al Gores “documentary” shows that they usually follow each other quite closely. Currently co2 levels are at record highs, temperatures however are not. Not that I would expect them to be given that the changes in CO2, as I said before, appear to follow changes in temperature. Presumably because the ocean emits higher levels of CO2 when it gets warmer.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I understand the mean climate temperature on earth has increased.4 degree in the last 50 years but has decreased .9 degrees in the last six.The second and fourth rocks from the sun Venus and Mars are both heating up due to solar activity so how come the third rock Earth is being heated by human activity. AGW is not an established fact its a political edict and the suppression of debate an abuse of power.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Go away and learn the science. Properly. It will take some months of intensive reading before you are even knowedgeable enough to critically examine the wide range of information on the topic, much less the years of specialised effort required before you can safely make any useful contribution.
Quit just repeating repeatedly de-bunked and flakey rubbish that you read on websites written equally ill-informed contrarians.
If any of you are serious about proving AGW is wrong, waffling on in kiwiblog is just a wank…go to realclimate.org and take on the experts in the comments sections there. If you really know so very much and are really SO very right, then you should be able to score an easy slam-dunk.
David S.
Your objection above has been explained repeatedly.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Can you say a prayer for me too Craig?
Vote:I’m a ‘godless bastard’ too.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
[Carbon levels are currently the highest they've ever been in the history of the planet]
Untrue, infact apart from the late Carboniferous period about 290 million years ago the CO2 levels of the current iceage are the lowest in the planets history.
[Historically the changes in CO2 trail the changes in temperature, IE the temperature changes cause the increases in CO2, not the other way around.]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/#more-430
[The temperatures in the troposphere have not been consistant with an AGW effect, pointing to another cause for the current warming.]
Untrue
[A. CO2 being the cause of climate change was a flimsy theory right from the start, since it's a pretty non-effectual GHG anyway]
Of the GH forcing gases CO2 has the strongest effect, the total GH effect on Earth lifts the surface temperature by 33C.
[B. There's no real evidence that is CO2 is responsible.]
Bullshit
[C. There's evidence that NO GHG is responsible.]
Bullshit
[D. There's a far more plausible theory out there IE sunspot cycles.]
The solar cycle last on average 11 years, there is zero evidence of a corallation between global temperatures and this cycle.
[E. There's actually some evidence (though it's not entirely rocksolid) to back it up.]
Bullshit
[The "evidence" pointing to CO2 being the cause of the current warming is based on correlation, but correlation does not equal causality.]
Bullshit, as I said GHG naturally lift Earth surface temperature by 33C, we have bumped up CO2 levels by 35% so far, a 100% increase is likely before the end of the century, as temperatures rise more water vapour (a powerful feed back GH gas can be supported i the atmosphere at constant humidity.
[The IPCC is mostly interested in making predictions based on the current warming conditions, it's not entirely made up of scientists, they don't conduct all their own research, it is a political institution.]
The scientist are more often than not frustrated by the political involvement watering down their conclusions in the released report.
[Why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility that the big, angry ball of fire in the sky is what causes the earth to heat up?]
For the sun to cause a change in the temperature of the Earth, the sun must change, appart from the ~11 year solar cycles, there has been no trend in solar output over the last 50 years.
Vote:The warming observed prior to WWII probably was mainly due to increasing solar output, but not the warming since.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Funny, I thought the whole point of this kind of debate was to (hopefully) get some useful feedback. Admitedly discussions here usually just look like bitch-fests.
Thanks for the link.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Southern Man ; consider it done brother.
It is hard to be facetious and humorous via email isn’t it. I have to find a way
God loves all us Godless bastards, of that I am sure.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“If any of you are serious about proving AGW is wrong, waffling on in kiwiblog is just a wank…go to realclimate.org and take on the experts in the comments sections there. If you really know so very much and are really SO very right, then you should be able to score an easy slam-dunk.”
What an arrogant pile of doo-doo. A perfect example of blah blah. Couple of points:
The reason idiots like me comment on web sites like this, is because I enjoy it. I haven’t read anyone claiming to be a genius or have all the answers…except you. And how do you do it, by commenting on the same blog we are on and posting a link for soemones elses ideas that you have bought into.
Way to be credible.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
‘Without CO2 we would all be dead along with all the plants and everything else.”
If so, using your definition, phosphates, nitrates, and other fertiliser runoff can’t be pollutants.’
Of course not without phosphorus and nitrates the carbon cycle STOPS
The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the CO2 increase alone could stimulate terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration by 350–980 Gt ( C in the 21st Century (Houghton et al. 2001).
Sequestering 350–980 Gt C in terrestrial ecosystems requires 7.7–37.5 Gt of nitrogen (N)
This is what makes the Greens look so stupid.The cycles overlap as “Only living systems never reach equilibrium” to quote Baeur.
Of course he could be wrong ,but that would also mean so are Boltzman, Spencer, Vernandsky, Seuss,Lotka,and Schrodinger.
Um you may want to rephrase your statement on T and the Solar cycle.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“I haven’t read anyone claiming to be a genius or have all the answers…except you. And how do you do it, by commenting on the same blog we are on and posting a link for soemones elses ideas that you have bought into.
Way to be credible.”
Verses Craigs system of making it all up as he goes along.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Baxter, I addressed the claims of global warming on other planets at the end of this thread:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/04/another_warming_hypocrite.html
Claims of GW on Venus is a new one, got a link?
The claim that temperatures have dropped 0.9C recently are fiction, the temperature spike that occured in 1998 was a result of a strong El Nino:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Labour seems to have given up on making any worthwhile respose to climate change. They have extended daylight saving so we can enjoy the warmer weather more.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
David S, I’m no biologist or geologist, but I find it hard to believe that the airborne carbon levels of the planet were lower prior to the existence of life. Fossil fuels are dead organisms remember, that took the carbon from the air, or other organisms. Since organisms began, they have been dying and turning into coal, oil etc.
Which suggests that airborne carbon levels have been steadily dropping, until recently when humans started digging up all that carbon and burning it.
Show me the flaw in that. I’m intrigued.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
AndrewW – are you back on your “denier” hobbyhorse? Better watch out or you’ll have Nigel snapping at your heels
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 7:37 am
Graham, I’m pretty sure Nigel has given up on me ever recognising his greater wisdom
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Global warming… Climate change…
Here’s the truth of the matter…
Its a load of manure, the earth is cyclic, that’s all. If you halfwits want to go around screaming, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” and restock your Y2K “Doomsday” shelters, well that’s your choice, jerks… Anyway, Marijuana produces greenhouse gases in large abundance, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Ben Wilson,
Please stop using logic in the argument.
Someone posted this really interesting link.
I have not had the time to check the accuracy of the graph, but it is really interesting.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Most notable is the point at which we are trying to maintain the average temperature, as opposed to the median temperature for history (kind of like trying to hold a pendulum at one end of its swing).
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Here’s a graph of CO2 over the last 600 or so million years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
The CO2 vs temperature corralation is not as high as you would probably expect and this is often used by AGW sceptics to argue against a cause and effect relationship, but over such a huge period of time the many other factors influencing global temperature are far more significant eg. Increasing solar output, effects of life, changing position of the continents, Earths albedo, volcanic activity.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Go for it Andrew!
[He's spot-on, y'know]
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Go for it Andrew!
[He's spot-on, y'know]
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I like this analysis…
In the presence of a biosphere, burial of organic carbon also contributes to atmospheric carbon sequestration in addition to silicate weathering. The biosphere also effectively circulates carbon between its organic and inorganic states and through this process has been able to completely change the composition of the atmosphere. The early biosphere may have produced the methane greenhouse during the Archean and early Proterozoic and later, through oxygenic photosynthesis, has depleted the methane and regulated the ratios of atmospheric CO2 and O2, thus having a significant impact on the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
Thus the cooling of the Earth interior has slowed down mantle convection which has contributed to surface cooling due to its influence on the greenhouse effect. The brightening Sun has had an opposite effect to increase the effective temperature by 7 K from the Paleoproterozoic to the Neoproterozoic. The combined secular trend of the mean surface temperature is hard to predict and need not be large.
However, both mechanisms led to the reduction of the importance of the greenhouse effect.
his increased spatial and temporal temperature gradients, with corresponding increases in wind speeds and ocean currents. The climate has transformed from an early rather featureless and homogeneous greenhouse-dominated system to one containing important temperature gradients and thus exhibiting latitudinal and seasonal effects and a rich set of nonlinearities and feedbacks, among them the albedo feedback.This development would have also taken place without life, but biological effects have substantially modified it.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000214
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Thanks for the link Mak, we seem to actually be in agreement here, is this a first?
Cheers Gareth, you better find something to put on your new site for me to argue with
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I read that scientists are concerned at the release of Methane which is a far more more potent GHG than CO2. Evidence of Siberia’s permafrost melting and exposing frozen but undecomposed vegetable matter which will lead to Methane emmissions appear to be a greater threat than CO2. Similar releases appear likely from Greenland, and the arctic and from the Clarates in the seabed and pose a greater threat but possibly a saviour if we can harvest the emmissions as a fuel. If a primary and uncontrollable source of warming is increased solar radiation as scientists appear to believe and evidenced by their reports of temperature increases in the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Jupiter then GHG reduction may only alleviate the problem and perhaps we should be devoting more energy to adapting to the likely effects.
Vote: