Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
oh my god
the planet is changing. surely this has never happened before!
the planet is changing. surely this has never happened before!
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III
- Thread starter Dan26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
MrCharisma
Club Legend
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
really?
If you can explain to me with any sort of detail why changes in earth's climate over long timescales are relevant to our current circumstances I'm more than happy to listen but simply saying climate has always changed isn't an argument of any substance.
I think this is actually the only time in earths history the temperature has been so stable for so long.
Un-natural? Fossilised carbon becomes oxidised, must be black magic.
Our definition of stable appears to be quite different but if you have links to climate recontructions or anything of that nature that support your assertion I'm happy to look.
Unnatural means contrary to the ordinary course of nature. I think that's a fair description of events since the industrial revolution.
So is a beaver dam against the ordinary course of nature?
Its been pretty constant for 10 000 years or so, but before that......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
there is no point discussing the topic as no one else is bothering to do anything about it anyway.
Have you read anything from anyone interested in taking action?
I'm not interested in wasting my time with pointless semantic arguments. Change unnatural to human induced if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change my point one way or the other.
If you ignore the recent reversal of the cooling trend yes you're absolutely right. The holocene has been unusually stable temperature wise though the Vostok ice cores only tell part of the story.
If there is no point discussing it why are you here offering up simplistic points about the climate always changing?
I've read plenty from people interested in taking action but I doubt anything of substance will actually be
done by policymakers for the foreseeable future. Plenty of info out there about climate change mitigation and the various geoengineering possibilities if you care to look. Is there a point to this line of questioning or are you just trying to avoid having to offer up anything of substance?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I am actually interested in action and reducing pollution. I think, whether we believe in global warming or global warming hype, we can all agree that reducing pollution is a good thing.
I am also not interested in waiting on others including the government to take action. That position is a cop out.
I am keen to understand if people have any good ideas or are already taken action. Who knows, we may actually achieve something through action. Any ideas?
- Thread starter
- #2,763
Give that C02 is a nutrient, not a pollutant, we could pump as much of it as possible into the atmosphere to help plant growth and global food production, thereby saving lives and increasing wealth, nutrition, health and happiness.
Oh wait, what? We're doing the opposite?
MrCharisma
Club Legend
You keep going on about solutions and action and claim you are not "interested in waiting on others including the government" to take action, yet you have only offered the following simplistic and tentative solutions yourself:
"For me:
- we need to rebuild our cities and have higher density living especially around our public transport hubs
- to make these cities liveable we need to get rid of suburbs and build boroughs surrounded by nature
- we need the electric car
- to power the electric car and transport systems we need massive clean base load"
Firstly, the electric car is an obvious choice, albeit a good one. But - since Im no expert - the following questions ( keeping in mind for all questions, we are not waiting for government intervention/assistance):
why is electric car ownership currently so low?
How do we increase electric car ownership globally?
what percentage of cars should be electric globally?
When do expect to reach this target?
How are we going to build succificient infrastructure i.e enough charging stations to cope with the millions of vehicles globally?
What type of clean fuel are we burning to charge the batteries?
What do the almighty oil companies think of this?
Regarding "rebuilding cities, getting rid of suburbs" etc. I'm not sure if this is a 1000 year plan? But anyway:
how do we implement this? (Remembering we are not waiting for government intervention)
what is your time frame?
Is this nationally or globally and how much will this reduce pollution by?
How much pollution will be caused by such a major infrasturcture project, taking into account that the cement industry is one of the primary producers of co2?
What happens to people in the suburbs and their homes?
What public transport hubs and where is the public transport going - does everyone still work in the city?
Which one of these have you implemented yourself? Which private companies are you convincing to take on these projects and what's in it for them?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
That may be true but there is little doubt coal is a dirty way to produce energy. It is cheap and provides base load but it does release a heap of ash and other pollutants into the air.
Some greenies see wind and solar as the solution but wind is unreliable and becomes very inefficient when it is more the circa 20% of the total power generation. Solar is simply crazy expensive thus it is not the answer for generations to come.
I looked at geo thermal and was so excited by the potential I put $15m into Geodynamics. Unfortunately that industry is doomed as the technical issues are extremely high.
I looked at wave power and put $2m into Carnegie. This has real potential but is a long long way from being a solution to our base load power needs.
Our portfolio as a result is still long on coal, uranium and gas.
We are underweight on renewables but for the right opportunity we would back an idea for up to $100m. The issue we have found is everyone can see issues but no one has solutions or the motivation to take action.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Brilliant and agree
A core issue to our problem is our cities are designed wrong. We need quality higher density. I think of Paris rather than Hong Kong as the right way to go for our inner city suburbs.
The resistance to change is the council but by syndicating funds, buying up large areas and working with council (and stacking council) much can be achieved.
I have recently merged three property companies who specialised in first home owners construction, a subdivision property group and a commercial construction business.
Our goal is to rollout 5 story quality multiple use constructions focusing on inner city perth.
The item you raised that i really like is the concept of boroughs. I want this as it provides a massive social benefit but I have no idea how to create or retro fit it.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I am also keen on the electric car but this will need to evolve with a solution to the power grid and clean base load power.
In the mean time I am looking at a hydrogen additive to diesel to make the fuel burn more efficiently and cleaner. It is still early days and I am struggling to get my head around it.
Any experts here?
This is the sort of statement that one can only agree with. In fact, the depth of its meaning can be gauged by alternatives such as "It is the role of surrealists (and the argumentative) to disprove something that always was." or "It is not the role of atheists to disprove something (dog) that was never provable in the first place."
Of course it does beg the questions (a) who are realists; and (b) what is it that was never provable (in any place)? I think there is fertile ground for disagreement between us on those two matters, but I shall move on.
Of course. As it is up to denialists to explain (through peer review, not nutjob blogs) why such proofs as alarmists might offer are inadequate.
If you want to convince me that alarmism theory is collapsing you will need to point to some peer reviewed paper(s) that demonstrate this collapse. Because, as you know, peer reviewed science speaks with largely one voice - AGW is a growing problem for humanity. Check out the certainty surrounding IPCC 5.
Do you have any suggestion as to how else alarmist authors of peer reviewed papers might otherwise use "empirical measurements". I mean it is not as if they can fly into a hypothetical (and if they are right, hopefully avoided) future, take empirical measurements in the future and then fly back to the present day to write their papers.
Indeed, do you think denialists themselves rely on anything other than empirical measurements NOW that they in their goofy, misfit way extrapolate and minimise into the future?
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I hope you would agree that Professor Stewart Franks from the Environmental Engineering Dept. of the University of Tasmania, who is an expert reviewer for IPCC 5, can not be classed as a denier, nutjob or even climate skeptic.
Franks recently said that there are thousands of scientists and climatologists who dissent from the views of the IPCC. He thinks the models they relied upon may have led them to exaggerate the threat of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
And that pause in warming is very real. If you build a climate model to simulate the climate and to simulate the effect of carbon dioxide on climate, then when you look at that climate model simulation, compare it to observations and you see the observations don't agree with the model, then that actually is not a very good model of climate.
He is one of many scientists who believes the IPCC process is not helpful in determining whether AGW is a growing problem for humanity.
By creating this elite body, you polarise the sight of a community. If you criticise it or if you disagree with aspects of its statements, then you're going against the IPCC. You know, when science is actually about diversity of opinions and then testing those opinions, those hypotheses with evidence and with data, and I think the consensus approach of the IPCC is actually very artificial.
MrCharisma
Club Legend
While I agree with alot of your ideas, I don't believe these are solutions to global warming. On the contrary, it seems alot of these "solutions" could cause more problems and be counterproductive.
Regarding high density living, while I somewhat agree with the sentiment from a logistical position, benefits of urban consolidation are largely based on assumptions, not research. I'd like to see some hard evidence this would have any benefit in halting pollution/global warming - it wouldn't surprise me if it took hundreds of years to offset the amount of pollution caused from such major infrastructure projects. It's also impossible to achieve without the appropriate government infrastructure and policies. Im not convinced.
On the topic of infrastructure, I'd like to see world governments invest in working towards developing a way to make cement with low-emmisions. The cement industry is the major contributor to co2 pollution - accounting for around 5% to global levels. Every ton of cement creates 900kg of co2 - mostly from the chemical reaction caused in processing it.Yet, cement is described as "the glue of progress" for booming economies. It's an essential material.
Regarding electric cars, lets be in honest in saying you've created more problems with this one than solutions. I don't see any other way of increasing ownership apart from the goverment offering subsidies and building the appropriate infrastructure. Your opinion on how the market could deal with this? And you did not mention your time frame.
Also, most of your ideas seem to be first-world focused. Considering poor nations are expected to be hit hardest by global warming in terms of droughts and famine, how do you suppose these countries adapt?
The position of an "alarmist" like me is that these issues need to be dealt with hastily and will only be possible with government intervention. Your position is we have plenty of time and we just need to adapt whenever.Hence, I think your claim that we need to debate solutions in this thread and not whether or not climate change is real or not, is moot. It's as good as me saying " ok, man made global warming is bullshit - but lets do everything we would do anyway if it was real asap"
A 95 % probability that humans are the cause of global warming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...g-now-even-clearer-latest-ipcc-report/4985878
Science for the win.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...g-now-even-clearer-latest-ipcc-report/4985878
Science for the win.
Sigh. In Victoria our electric cars are plugged into Hazelwood. A $50000 shitbox ( 150ish km range )which depreciates almost entirely in 3 years has more impact on the environment than a 1.2 litre Ford diesel worth 20K.
But another aspect to this is the total waste of resources and energy invoved in building cars that we get rid of every few years.
Until we get low emission base load its no solution. Nukes anyone?
Cities have to be built correctly. For starters the most basic need, heat, is typically supplied by a heat pump. That's an electric heater. Europe had central heating in cities decades ago.
I don't agree completely about the suburbs though. Why do we want to be huddled in cities. We don't need all the institutions huddled together anymore.
Have a look at a suburbs in China and look at Australian suburbs. Those trees and shrubs in our low density suburbs are turning CO2 into oxygen. But with modern communications I think smaller satellite towns make more sense so that people don't have to travel as much.
But the thing I think is significant about the long term temperature fluctuation, is not why is the temperature changing. The question for me is why do we expect the temperature to stay the same.
- Banned
- #2,773
Ok, a few points.
Firstly, electric cars aren't there yet but they will be soon. Rapid advances in battery technology are being made, mainly in the field of carbon supercapicitors, which charge rapidly and are inexpensive to manufacture.
Secondly, the better current batteries have a longer shelf life than 3 years and they can be replaced, you don't need to scrap the whole car.
Next, low emission baseload or the lack thereof is a choice, a political choice or in some cases economic, however it is not an impossibility.
As for high density living, you have it all wrong. Land clearing for suburban expansion eliminates far greater carbon sinks, than a few trifling parks, or shrubbery. However, green spaces can still be maintained. Many high density Japanese cities still have an abundance of public green spaces.
The last point is not really a point at all, all dynamic systems are subject to variability, however that does not eliminate the affects of human input.
MrCharisma
Club Legend
I don't think destroying and rebuilding cities is going to get us any where. Also wouldn't agree that heat is a basic need in Australia .
I think we can make better use of the space we have in general. I like this idea:
I agree on that, but people want to. Emissions due to industry are massive we are producing steel and forming it , and making it into junk that we throw away in an endless cycle.
Cars are part of that.
We can build things to last longer, but we cant keep them in fashion, and it seems fashion is a very important thing.
The planned redundancy on items like iphones is so obvious its almost painful. But for some reason Apple are popular among the green set.
I disagree with suburbs. Most new suburbs now are being built on former farm land. Look at the older suburbs. Its not trifling parks. there are trees everywhere.
Similar threads
