The Danger of Conquering Climate Change.

Discussion in 'Alpine & Southern' started by Vermillion, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Ok, going out on a limb here, if u think im crazy just say so and ill go back into my hole and find more ideas to spit out at you.

    Climate change and anthropogenic climate change (NOTE i have put them as 2 separate entities) are some of the most sought after and researched topics in the world of science today, and effect everyone and their lives.

    For decades now, people have measured the CO2 and other GHG concentrations and the undoubtable consensus is that they are increasing, both naturally and due to human induced changes.

    This thread is definately not about the specifics of climate change. These kinds of threads have been started before and have turned into flame wars, and im not about to start another one.

    No, this thread is a dicussion of the possible dangers we all face if we actually do conquer climate change. Confused? then read on and i will try to explain myself.

    Firstly, what does it mean to 'conquer climate change'? Well, in my mind most scientists, the IPCC and several government agencies in almost every developed country and trying to find ways to reduce their GHG emissions and stop polluting the earth. It would seem to many then, that conquering climate change would involved limiting or eliminating emissions and trying to stabilise the earth system. This would in fact slow the rate the earth warms at current, eventually stopping it in the hope of decreasing it.

    Question no.1:
    IS THIS WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO? Do we really want to stop the heating of the earth? do we really want to cool the place down again? why?

    Ok, so assuming we do want to stop the earth heating, how do we do it? At the moment we only know 1 way - to keep heating the earth by putting GHG's and other pollutants into the atmosphere/oceans. i think this is a good thing. Not because we're heating the earth, i think thats bad, but because we can ONLY heat the earth, read on...

    Ok, so lets just say we find a way to negate and reduce the amount of GHG's and pollutants we put into the atmosphere (its not important how its done, just that it IS done). We find a way to do this on a global scale that cools the earth. Now not only can we heat the earth whenever we want to by adding more GHG's and pollutants, but we can also cool the earth when we want to by whatever method we found to work effectively.

    This is dangerous.

    You dont have to be a genius to see that people/countries/organisations will possibly be able to use this to their advantage. Some industry and economies thrive on decreased temperature, some thrive on warmer temperatures. Not everyone will be happy with what you do, you can please everyone.

    And then there is the possible terrorist connection. no, i dont mean people who wear toilet paper on their heads, have beards and blow up buses. I mean anybody who will be in control or have access to this technology and has a hidden agenda. If we know so much about the earth that we can heat it up and cool it down at will, then we can also affect other things about it too. For example, take the thermohaline circulation. some organisation could threaten to shut it down by releasing massive amounts of GHG's (will there be carbon credits and stores of carbon by this time? possibly). This would melt the polar ice caps, releasing massive amounts of freshwater into the north atlantic, shutting down the thermohaline circulation. if the THC was shut down, average temperatures in europe would warm by 6-7C. This is significant.

    Anyways, what i am getting at is that it is dangerous to have this sort of power where we control the climate the same way you do with your climate control in the car. yes sure, most people dont like the idea of the earth warming at this rate, but i think people will live to regret it when we can turn up or down the heat on earth and it gets into the wrong hands.

    discuss. [​IMG]
     
    #1 Vermillion, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  2. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Very interest thought and well expressed. Hopefully we will get a good thread out of this.

    Even if we are causing climate change at the moment because of our ignorance, your suggestion about humans controlling the earths climate could very well be a reality within 100 years. Thats within the lifetime of our children.

    Imagine being able to bring on droughts or floods for other contries while at the same time ensuring perfect food production weather for your own country.

    Hmmm interesting and frightening concept.
     
  3. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    yes and this is why i think too much power over something as massive as this is dangerous. as you said i can see whole continents held to ransom over other continents, inter-annual systems like ENSO/THC/AO possibly being tampered with and altered to suit particular individuals and countries.

    Its a case of better the devil u know than the devil you dont i think.
     
  4. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    Not likely to ever happen. It took us 200yrs at pretty ferocious rates to effect the change we have done, it would still take decades to effect the changes and would have pretty major localised effects around the machinery that was doing it. Controling climate change is probably not likely in this case. That said there is talk of using sulphur in experiments to replicate the effect of volcanoes - acid rain anyone?

    Controlling weather however is a possibility. Creating rainfall in defined areas is valuable. Imagine only ever having rain fall during the night or while at work. Imagine being able to prevent a tornado entering populated areas.

    Of course these would affect the climate over time... probably in an unpredictable way.
     
  5. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    i think it is likely to happen schaden. maybe not for 500 or 1000 years or more but like u said by influencing the weather the end product is being able to change the climate of the earth like a thermostadt.
     
  6. Top Rock

    Top Rock Hard Yards

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thredbo
    A bit sooner than that....

    http://twm.co.nz/wxwar.html#Nikola%20Tesla

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/

    PS Vermillion, wouldn't shutting down the thermohaline circulation cool Europe down, not warm it or is that another current??

    Some relevant patents for weather warfare...

    U.S. Patent 4686605:
    Method And Apparatus For Altering A Region In The Earth's Atmosphere,
    Ionosphere, And/Or Magnetosphere
    Inventors: Eastlund; Bernard J., Spring, TX
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
    Issued: Aug. 11, 1987
    Filed: Jan. 10, 1985

    U.S. Patent 5038664:
    Method For Producing A Shell Of Relativistic Particles At An Altitude
    Above The Earth's Surface
    Inventors: Eastlund; Bernard J., Spring, TX
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Aug. 13, 1991
    Filed: Jan. 10, 1985

    U.S. Patent 4712155:
    Method And Apparatus For Creating An Artificial Electron Cyclotron
    Heating Region Of Plasma
    Inventors: Eastlund; Bernard J., Spring, TX
    Ramo; Simon, Beverly Hills, CA
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
    Issued: Dec. 8, 1987
    Filed: Jan. 28, 1985

    U.S. Patent 5068669:
    Power Beaming System
    Inventors: Koert; Peter, Washington, DC
    Cha; James T., Fairfax, VA
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Nov. 26, 1991
    Filed: Sep. 1, 1988

    U.S. Patent 5218374:
    Power Beaming System With Printer Circuit Radiating Elements
    Having Resonating Cavities
    Inventors: Koert; Peter, Washington, DC
    Cha; James T., Fairfax, VA
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: June 8, 1993
    Filed: Oct. 10, 1989

    U.S. Patent 5293176:
    Folded Cross Grid Dipole Antenna Element
    Inventors: Elliot; Paul G., Vienna, VA
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Mar. 8, 1994
    Filed: Nov. 18, 1991

    U.S. Patent 5202689:
    Lightweight Focusing Reflector For Space
    Inventors: Bussard; Robert W., Manassas, VA
    Wallace; Thomas H., Gainesville, FL
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Apr. 13, 1993
    Filed: Aug. 23, 1991

    U.S. Patent 5041834:
    Artificial Ionospheric Mirror Composed Of A Plasma Layer
    Which Can Be Tilted
    Inventors: Koert; Peter, Washington, DC
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Aug. 20, 1991
    Filed: May. 17, 1990

    U.S. Patent 4999637:
    Creation Of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above The Earth
    Inventors: Bass; Ronald M., Houston, TX
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Mar. 12, 1991
    Filed: May. 14, 1987

    U.S. Patent 4954709:
    High Resolution Directional Gamma Ray Detector
    Inventors: Zigler; Arie, Rishon Le Zion, Israel
    Eisen; Yosset, Rishon Le Zion, Israel
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Washington, DC
    Issued: Sep. 4, 1990
    Filed: Aug. 16, 1989

    U.S. Patent 4817495:
    Defense System For Discriminating Between Objects In Space
    Inventors: Drobot; Adam T., Annandale, VA
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
    Issued: Apr. 4, 1989
    Filed: Jul. 7, 1986

    U.S. Patent 4873928:
    Nuclear-Sized Explosions Without Radiation
    Inventors: Lowther; Frank E., Plano, TX
    Assignees: APTI, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
    Issued: Oct. 17, 1989
    Filed: June 15, 1987
     
    #6 Top Rock, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  7. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Top Rock - Re THC, i was pretty sure it was warm it up by 6-7C because the cool waters in the Nth Atlantic kept the temperature down. ive been over this many times, perhaps i should go over my notes again.

    cheers for the heads up, and confusing me :p
     
  8. rossi

    rossi First Runs

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CANE TOAD COUNTRY
    Global warming and its causes..especially the human contribution is a hot topic.

    I think I have a handle on what our industrial and domestic fallout is doing to the ozone layer and the 'atmospheric' haze but I've read in a few scientific jounals that water vapor is the number one greenhouse emission and that it is entirely natural. I have abosolutely no doubt however that the warming trend is happening and that we are helping things along.

    My question is..wouldn't natures own continued contributions like massive volcanic events eclipse anything we could spew out.

    Apparently the Santorini erruption and the other one in NZ affected the climate quite significantly.

    If we could invent mechanisms that harnessed the outcome of weather events we'd still be competing with Mother Natures contra events (volcanoes and the odd meteor) that stuffed our plans up.
     
  9. Top Rock

    Top Rock Hard Yards

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thredbo
    Vermillion- yes it cools down. Thus western europe freezes in the early stages of the THC shutdown

    a good referance to this at http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

    Robert B. Gagosian
    President and Director
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution......
    If too much fresh water enters the North Atlantic, its waters could stop sinking. The Conveyor would cease. Heat-bearing Gulf Stream waters (red lines) would no longer flow into the North Atlantic, and European and North American winters would become more severe.
     
    #9 Top Rock, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2013
  10. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    top rock - thanks for correcting me. [​IMG] i had the mechanism right, but not the effects.

    good discussion so far, i just hope this doesnt spill to another global warming thread. as i stated in the first thread, in this scenario we have already controlled and reduced global warming, so we dont need to discuss why its is happening and how we are going to fix it.

    another point, how much/long do we stop it till? do we let the temperature/GHG concentrations go back to pre-industrial times, or 1900, or 2000 or what? surely this would be playing god and considering that the earth system is constantly changing that would become a factor in deciding how far we go.

    also, convincing every nation on earth (and EVERY nation should have say) to all agree on a desired GHG concentration and temperature decrease would be an enormous task, one that i dont believe could ever be achieved.

    think about it, say US wants to lower temps by 5C. Do you think Iran/Syria/Pakistan will agree? even if thats the scenario they want, i find it hard to believe they would agree with the US or a NATO country. Again this is what will make this a dangerous prospect.
     
    #10 Vermillion, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  11. rossi

    rossi First Runs

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CANE TOAD COUNTRY
    Another by product of THC shutdown (although not a climatic effect) would be the disruption to the food chain. The conveyor is responsible for the lifting of nutrients which feeds the small organisms that larger marine organisms eat. The whole food chain would be thrown into turmoil. When you think about it there could be some disruption to the climate as nobody really understands what the gasseous by products of these surfacing micro marine plants do. We do know that marine plant life is responsible for some CO2 absorbtion but I cant find any literature that suggest what percentage.

    Everyone attributes the earths lungs to our rain forests but I sometimes wonder if they have help from ocean plantlife too.
     
  12. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    they uptake a hell of a lot of CO2, thats for sure. 97% of the worlds photosynthesis occurs in the oceans. and people worry about the forests. (note, this is not implying that deforestation ISNT important, quite the contrary). when u have such quantities of marine biota that simply die, there isnt going to be anywhere near as much CO2 uptake by the oceans. Remembering in most aquatic system N is the limiting nutrient (sometimes P in some systems) this would have a catastrophic effect.
     
  13. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    I've looked into this in some detail previously. The southern oceans are the most important factor for phytoplankton and changes in the oceans circulation affects so much more. A tidbit is that the NAC has decreased by around 40% recently bringing us closer to a potential tipping point. Will post some more tonight when I get home.
     
  14. rossi

    rossi First Runs

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CANE TOAD COUNTRY
    Ok, so now whole fishing based economies would be disrupted by the gradual decimation of the very nuturients that feed the cod, the herrings, the halibut etc.
     
  15. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    but then there is also the question of can we just turn off and on the THC, or once we shut it down is that the end of it. There is no definate answer on this yet, but people are leaning towards the fact that once its gone it aint coming back again.

    this makes it a powerful barganing tool.
     
  16. rossi

    rossi First Runs

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CANE TOAD COUNTRY
    The flip side is that there would be warmer currents in other colder oceans. Another Gulf Stream effect in another ocean.

    Hobart becomes the tropical holiday alternative venue for the desert up in Cairns.

    The Poms will be able to ski in the Cotswolds whilst drinking Patagonian Banana smoothies.

    We may be looking at a global shift rather than just one Atlantic episode.
     
  17. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    Whoaaa, hold your horses there... It's not so simple. Nobody knows for sure what happens if the NAC turns off or if it does, will it switch on by itself. Some say yes, some say no. It could reassert itself in just as short a period. The climatic impact of it is less important than the effect on fisheries IMHO. A change in the currents in one area could devastate fisheries world wide in a few years - less than a decade, regardless of how quickly it turns on.
     
  18. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Folk's there seems to have been these warming and cooling events over the milleniums, however the human race was not around or unable to measure and register such temperature related events.

    Apparently within the ice cores being dug out of Greenland the "mini" ice age events are common, in fact we are more than overdue. The events seem to be triggered by the "Gulf Stream" (alias the conveyor) being slowed down by polar melt. The freshwater hits the oceans, sinks to the ocean floor and then travels around the globe, however as it is predominately Freshwater and not salt water it doesn't rise (in the same way) and therefore the return trip is no longer balanced, this apparently slows the Gulf stream down.

    The estimates of a "mini iceage" re-occurence is between 20 and 100 years, based upon rate of melt.

    According to another report that I was riveted too was an overdue major seismic event, apparently within the ice cores, traces of suplhur dioxide have also been found at alarmingly regular intervals, we are around a couple of hundred years overdue of a significant event.

    So IMHO no matter what we try to do, the climate (the earths lifeblood and environment) is so far away from our comprehension that the best we could do would be to create a minor blemish over a large number of years.

    The other effects of "conveyor" changes would be significant changes in ocean temperature zones, creating significant changes in weather patterns and weather events.

    Given all of this, what actual difference could we mere mortals really make in a time frame that would meet the timeframes of us greedy natured humans? I would suggest there are faster and more decisive methods to achieve those goals.

    IMHO The world will have a way to fix itself up, we just haven't really experienced such an event.

    Oh theres also the other topic of core cooling and or flux change.

    Of course these could be hyperthetical... also?
     
  19. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    A problem with focusing on the THC is that it simply redistributes heat. If you switch it off, Europe stands too cool substantially but the southern hemisphere will bake. Analyses I have seen suggest that a collapse of the thermohaline circulation will cause the entire southern hemisphere to warm 1 to 2C.

    The problem of climate change actually lends itself to an insurance approach. For example, define what the chance is that temperatures will rise by 3C by 2100? The IPCC has a probability of about 0.5. Crude economic analysis I have seen suggsts that this warming will cost at leat $1000 billion per annum. Given these numbers, if it costs you less than 0.5*$1000 billion = $500 billion per annum to stop global warming then you would be silly not to. The sceptics on this site might give a probability of 0.05 in which case the cost effective number drops to $50 billion per annum. This kind of analysis allows you to accomodate whatever confidence or otherwise you have in climate change predictions.

    Hill Billy
     
  20. agentBM

    agentBM Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2000
    Messages:
    15,104
    Likes Received:
    593
    Location:
    Space..traveling through the vast non emptiness
    I say only that we are at the mercy of similar technologies in the hands of psycho-paths now with technology capable of creating and bouncing waves through the crust and mantle of the earth to pinpoint create earthquakes and other seismology. Whilst there is continuous "monetary" focus, there can only be greed - it is in attitude where the greatest work lies, the rest then flows naturally so to speak, for the negative effects are flow on effects from past / present wrong or bad attitudes all based on profit exercised mainly in the interests of the individual. Humanity began in more community based spirit for progress and has been losing that sense ever since. Whilst we ever hold the attitude we are able to conquer, .....well the very meaning of 'conquer' and our use of it, clearly demonstrates we are missing the whole point. We must learn integration (again) - conquer is the problem and our undoing in all life.
     
  21. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    cheers to all the replies and for keeping this thread 'clean' for the moment.

    you might be interested to know that i had a chat to 2 of my lecturers in climatology today (Prf. Nigel Tapper and Amanda Lynch), nigel has written a good book with sturman called 'climate change' or something like that that i really should have,and amanda is in the region climatic change research group at monash, so they're both pretty credible people.

    they both shut me down big time, basically :p Of course to alter the climate could not take place overnight, it would have to be a grandual thing over geological timescales. They also seemed to think that we humans arent as great and all powerful as we think we are and if we tried to change it there would be resistance to change and you simply could not tell what would happen.

    However they were certainly open to the possibility of 'climatic terrorism' as they called it. Shutting down the THC, somehow initiating seismic activity to induce volcanoes to erupt and such other things in the future. Some of these would not change the climate permanentely, but its plain to see what a massive volanic eruption, or even multiple human-induced volanic eruptions could do to the climate on earth.

    They also had no real answer when i asked them how they would get the whole world to agree on everyone accepting the same thing. They were talking about when we conquer climate change to put the GHG levels back to something that isnt dangerous and 'acceptable', but of course that is different to everyone depending on what you want.

    Another PhD student gave a good lecture on climate extremes, which was pretty insightful. i will try to post the .pdf document when it becomes available on the web for me.
     
  22. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    So a +1/+2C change throughout the SH is 'baking'? I mean sure, it will make a difference, but havent we already experienced this sort of heating since pre-industrial times? Unless you meant certain areas would bake, then i would be really interested to see these analyses to see which parts of the SH would be more prone to heating than others.
     
    #22 Vermillion, Aug 2, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  23. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    In the UK they publish what is called the CET - Central England Temperature. It is an average of day and night time temps. A new all time record was just set for July of 17.7C, up only 0.4C on the previous. We've had numerous days well over 30C last month with fairly severe effects in terms of deaths, power outages, etc. A rise of another 1.5C would be hard for the brits to deal with.

    I think you'd see pretty severe effects in Oz with that temperature rise too. It's not just day temps that have to rise.
     
  24. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    well day temps usually arent the ones to rise first, or as dramatically. its the winter time minimum temps that show the greatest increased in the 20th centuary. summer daily maximums are up, but not as much as winter minimums.

    one could also argue that in some areas the raising of minimum temperatures in winter would reduce the need for heating overnight and heating in general during winter time. remember heating uses just as much energy as cooling (well cooling air, there are more and less efficient ways of doing this).
     
  25. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    >So a +1/+2C change throughout the SH is 'baking'? I mean sure, it will make a difference, but havent we already experienced this sort of heating since pre-industrial times?

    Two things about this increase. First it will be extremely rapid (as rapid as the thermohaline circulation slows down). Our ski season will disappear in the blink of an eye. Second, add 2C and the world will be very different from the one we know and will put southern hemisphere temperatures at their highest in around 5 million years. I for one would prefer not to be around for it...

    BTW Vemillion, suspect we will cross paths at Monash in September.

    Hill Billy
     
  26. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Cheers, i understand now.
     
  27. et

    et First Runs

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2000
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sydney,nsw
    Vermillion,

    Its an interesting topic, thou I think the main issue is, as already pointed out, the timeframe over which these events occur.

    Another is uncertainty. Given our own furious debates over warming and its effects, any deliberate attempt at change (or resistance to it) would have to be whaaaaayyyy more certain about impacts then we are at the moment.

    As a side point the Russian astronomer, Nicolai Kardashev, cited control of the weather as one of the hallmarks of the lowest form of "advanced" civilizations (ie Type I) in his famous Type I,II and III catalogue of advanced civilizations.

    Daj's point about the economics of things is interesting. I think many of the economic assesments of global warming suggest it is not worth stopping it, given the huge costs and long timeframes involved. Basically we incur the costs now to receive benefits which are far in the future (and hence heavily discounted). Well that's economists for you.

    An issue related to the one youve bought up (and a more trobling issue from the point of environmental philosophy) is:

    "Well so what if warming/cooling occurs (for whatever reason). Some species will be favoured. Others will not be. Who are we to say what is the best 'State of Nature' ?" I've yet to hear a good answer to that question. Atopic for another thread methinks... [​IMG]
     
    #27 et, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  28. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    ET, a couple of comments.

    >Another is uncertainty. Given our own furious debates over warming and its effects, any deliberate attempt at change (or resistance to it) would have to be whaaaaayyyy more certain about impacts then we are at the moment.

    The uncertainity about the warming is actually rather small (or more precisely doesn't change the fact that we can't keep enhancing the greenhouse effect without significant consequences). The sensitivity of climate to a double of carbon dioxide is almost certainly in the range of 1 to 5C (with 3C being most likely - this is consistent with the warming we are seeing). At the low end by 2100 we will have the warmest globe since 120,000BC (a time we sea levels were metres higher than the present). At the high end we will have global temperatures higher than any period for many millons of years, and be committed to around 70m of sea level rise.

    >Daj's point about the economics of things is interesting. I think many of the economic assesments of global warming suggest it is not worth stopping it, given the huge costs and long timeframes involved.

    The analyses hinge on how we discount future damage (using so-called discount rates). This often hinden assumption determines the answer you get.

    There are two(probably) fatal errors with these analyses IMHO. The presume that adaption is always possible and they apply individual rates of discount to a global societal problem. This is not valid as our individual discount rates reflect our finite lifes and planning horizons, whereas societies have much longer lifes, hopefully. As individuals, it matters not that we will pay for our actions in 50 years as we probably won't be around, but a society will.

    Hill Billy
     
  29. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72,307
    Likes Received:
    27,014
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    "it matters not that we will pay for our action in 50 year as we probably wont be around, but a society will". - What if they find a way to cope with it? Have a look at what people said we would be doing in the year 2000 when they first sent man to the moon, over 30 years ago. Its a totally different story to what was predicted. I think human progression is likely to be similarly unpredictable in the future aswell, which could lead to all sorts of problems when we start assuming stuff now.
     
  30. et

    et First Runs

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2000
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sydney,nsw
    Daj,

    Don't fundamentally disagree with you in terms of uncertainty. I think my point is that even accepting a 1-5 degree increase leaves plenty of margin for different scenarios to emerge. So its hard to manufacture an outcome with precision.

    As for discount rates, ethically I agree, but an alternative approach assumes a lot of weight is put on "inter-generational equity" - that people think primarily of those as yet unborn rather then themselves.

    That perspective has yet to find its way into mainstream thought - regardless of what should be (or what some people say) [​IMG]
     
    #30 et, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  31. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Interesting:

    I recall all my years in London and the SE and cannot remember temps regularily over 34C, I do recall a couple of days in the low to mid thirties and it caused the tar to bubble up on the roads. I heard that London temps got to just a shade over 40C for a number of days, with high thirties abound. Surely that is more than an overall +0.7 rise. The US have registered a 2C rise over the same period over previous records (just not sure how far back though!).

    [​IMG]
     
    #31 keefy, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  32. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    There has been some very interesting documentaries of late on these subjects (these as well as these forums tend to be my main source of knowledge and interest). It would seem as quoted to Vermillion, that indeed humans could not currently have technology or skills to manage significant weather change.

    The world (here we go) has been around managing changes long, long before we humans were even contemplated, whilst I do agree we could certainly trigger geological influences on the weather (if we were stupid enough to do this), the earth has been through so many extreme variations and at each event major lifeform changes have occured.

    I am certain that we are on the cusp, whether it is major or minor only time will tell. It's interesting that as we learn more about our environment we are starting to be aware of significant changes to the environment. It has been suggested that as the Conveyer slows down that the equatorial weather patterns would move south somewhat, there may be merit in this, has this year (so far) been noted for record temps north and a wetter winter season for our monsoon belt being sensed. This could also explain somewhat on why the high pressure systems have not shifted as far north as one would usually expect. Also coupled to this the computer models have not been able to predict weather events or developments as well as normal, because the models are based on known records and events as a baseline....

    Movies such as the Day after tomorrow are obviously fictitious, however the scenario it used as the basis of the movie is not so far out of the question. It is common knowledge that over the last number of years the common cry has been aren't the weather events getting worse, hotter, colder, stormier etc. More marked el nino and la nina events, less temperate european weather are all signs of change.

    The earth is a fine balance of many environmentals, like Ocean flows and temps, Ice shelves, foliage, Magnetic flux, core temps, Geological events, lifeforms. As all these things can change and will always change independantly, the balance must be maintained by changes in any of the other components. This could be by Major geological events, Temperature rise or fall and I beleive prot
     
  33. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    There has been some very interesting documentaries of late on these subjects (these as well as these forums tend to be my main source of knowledge and interest). It would seem as quoted to Vermillion, that indeed humans could not currently have technology or skills to manage significant weather change.

    The world (here we go) has been around managing changes long, long before we humans were even contemplated, whilst I do agree we could certainly trigger geological influences on the weather (if we were stupid enough to do this), the earth has been through so many extreme variations and at each event major life form changes have occured.

    I am certain that we are on the cusp, whether it is major or minor only time will tell. It's interesting that as we learn more about our environment we are starting to be aware of significant changes to the environment. It has been suggested that as the Conveyer slows down that the equatorial weather patterns would move south somewhat. There is merit in this, has this year (so far) been noted for record temps north and a wetter winter season for our monsoon belt being sensed? This could also explain somewhat on why the high pressure systems have not shifted as far north as one would usually expect. Also coupled to this, it has been noted that the computer models have not been able to predict weather events or developments as well as normal. Is this not because the models are based on known records and events as a baseline....

    Movies such as the Day after tomorrow are obviously fictitious, however the scenario it used as the basis of the movie is not so far out of the question. It is common knowledge that over the last number of years the common cry has been aren't the weather events getting worse, hotter, colder, stormier etc. More marked el nino and la nina events, less temperate european weather are all signs of change.

    The earth is a fine balance of many environmentals, like Ocean flows and temps, Ice shelves, foliage, Magnetic flux, core temps, Geological events, lifeforms. As all these things can change and will always change independantly, the balance must be maintained by changes in any of the other components. This could be by Major geological events, Temperature rise or fall and I believe protection of certain environmentals.

    Of course this could just be a freak year! [​IMG]
     
    #33 keefy, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  34. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    #34 filski, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  35. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    #35 keefy, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  36. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,250
    Likes Received:
    14,633
    #36 filski, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  37. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    daj i havent weighed into this discussion. There a quite a number who dont agree with the "official line". I think it is important to understand that there are more views out there then most people realize.

    In two recent radio interviews, i heard radio announcers, (1 ABC and 1 commercial), try very hard to get the scientists to say that the science was settled regarding global warming.

    Both had a hard time to get their message across that the science wasnt settled and a lot more work was needed, without being sidtracked into the "official line" (eg humans are the cause of global warming, which is what the announcers wanted to say).

    Vermillion has started a good thread here. Please feel free to state your postition, but also acknowledge that your position isnt the only one.
     
  38. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Hi Schaden,

    Interesting, I am inclined to agree to a point, there will be speculation at all levels, after all, who took records and had enough equipment to monitor and accurately measure the events, we only have a historic record in ice from Greenland, we do not have such locked data from the rst of the north atlantic shelf.

    I would suspect that there is more merit in the oceans producing more significant weather cycles, after all we know of the effects of the SOI. With the conveyor slowing down the oceans temperatures would not get distributed as widely, therefore some area's would be significantly warmer than others, this in turn would have a dramatic effect in the ensuing weather patterns, surely!

    I will get onto the other pointers also.... :cheers:
     
    #38 keefy, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  39. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    >What if they find a way to cope with it? Have a look at what people said we would be doing in the year 2000 when they first sent man to the moon, over 30 years ago. Its a totally different story to what was predicted. I think human progression is likely to be similarly unpredictable in the future aswell, which could lead to all sorts of problems when we start assuming stuff now.

    Vermillion, every time I fly into a certain airport I am struck by how little capacity we have to cope with climate change. Go there at high tide and the water laps only a few 10's of cm below the level of the runways (I would guess about 30cm). Sea level is rising at 2.9mm/yr (see http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) and is following an approximate exponential shape inline with temperatures and CO2. Ponder for a moment... how do you adapt an airport to sea level rise?

    Magnify this problem to every coastal city to every piece of infrastructure. Add a need to cope with hotter heatwaves, worse bushfires, unreliable rainfall, stronger cyclones, more intense floods. And while this is all going on we will have to cut our CO2 emissions to slow the rate of change. It is not suprising that some published research indicates that the global economy runs the risk of bankrupting the other side of 2050.

    Hill Billy

    PS

    Taipan, there is no official line. There is the science in the peer reviewed journals developed over the course of a century which is reflected in an almost 100% acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. On the other side you have a couple of scientists elevated to movie star status owing to the convenience of their beliefs.
     
    #39 daj, Aug 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  40. Romfrantic

    Romfrantic Hard Yards

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    expat living in Switzerland
    Daj, do you work with people at Monash? I've started working with one of the climate groups there, I'd be interested in knowing what you do there - PM me.
     
    #40 Romfrantic, Aug 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  41. keefy

    keefy First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Just reading some stuff that Schaden refered to (BBC Weather web pages) with exception of timing I think we all know the progression of events.

    I would guess that we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, quite literally, if the conveyor doesn't stop and plunge the North Atlantic shelf into a cold spell, the sea's will rise and whop us!

    It is interesting to note that the changes that have been recorded in the ice cores have all swung in a very short space of time, i.e. a decade or two!

    It is obvious that the climate goes through cycles, it is also obvious that currently we are all accelerating the warming cycle far quicker than the cycle could normally allow. Looking back over the history of the earth, land masses, water levels and weather patterns have changed many times, contiments have formed land masses have dissapeared, I reckon we are all very niave to think that we humans are responsible for the current climatic changes, or rising sea's. Although we may have a miniscual effect in accelerating the events (maybe along the lines of a .001 KM/H increase in acceleration).

    Climate change is as sure as is a sunny day, it is just a matter of where we really are in the cycle, unfortunately we are only really just starting to comes to grips with the climatic whims of our planet, computers have helped greatly over the last 40 odd years, shame they weren't about over the last 10K years!

    It is also a fair comment, as mentioned before, that we maybe should not try and turn back the clock, who knows what that might unleash on us. It si fairly clear to all of us that the life balance on earth is extremely fragile, gradual change is a safer approach than rapid changes, good or bad! IMHO [​IMG]
     
    #41 keefy, Aug 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  42. Top Rock

    Top Rock Hard Yards

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thredbo
    Gaea will look after herself.....
    Will Humanity fit into the scheme of things is the question
     
  43. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    >I reckon we are all very niave to think that we humans are responsible for the current climatic changes, or rising sea's. Although we may have a miniscual effect in accelerating the events (maybe along the lines of a .001 KM/H increase in acceleration).

    Keefy, you might think this but you will be very hard pressed to find an expert who agrees. Our climate is now warming at a rate 25-50 times faster than occured at the end of the last ice age which was a period of natural climate upheaval. We are so far out of the envelope of naturally occuring changes that the case is open and shut.

    Sure, nature has thrown up some rapid changes in the past but these were associated with catestrophic changes such as the bursting of the Lauretin Ice Dam (caused the Younger Dryas), asteroid strikes, or massive volcanic activity. We have none of these happening now... just humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate not seen in many many millions of years.

    Hill Billy
     
  44. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Well hill Billy what a load of Croc.

    The frightening thing is that you really believe what your saying.

    Not only you but 2000 USA scientists of which only 60 hold PHD have received over 1,000,000 each to frighten the crap out of us since 1997. Thats over 2,000,000,000 or 2 billion! That excludes other scientists from other countries, who have also jumped on the gravy train.

    Its the growth business isnt it. Full of bad science and poorly researched results. A science where frightening outcomes will ensure further funding.

    Manns findings are slowly but surely unravelling. Trotted out as the pin up boy of the CO2 global warming theory. The corner stone to Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC 2001). Amazingly poorly researched, poorly thought out and of dubious scientific basis but vigourously defended as only an ideology will be.

    There is very poor causality between CO2 and temperature change and you know it, although you try despearatly to paper over the cracks.

    We find far better causality between cosmic ray intensity and temperature then with CO2 and temperature.

    What comes first CO2 and then temperature change, or temperature change and then CO2 increase?

    Ill say it again. Its great that the global warming guru's have pinned their positions to the mast. Its great that the CO2 guru's have centre stage. If you are right they have nothing to fear, but as they know, they have much to fear.

    To quote from one of your mentors.

    In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: “To capture the public
    imagination . . . we have to . . . make simplified dramatic
    statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    . . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being
    effective and being honest.â€


    Little better then snake oil salesmen!

    People like you, and the global warming proponents come out and try and bash us over the head to tell us what to believe. Most believe you including the media.

    However you do know the huge holes in your understanding. This from IPCC 1995 and as you know little has truly changed unless you come out and subscribe to schneiders position.

    ``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed."

    - Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment


    While everything you hear is all about global warming, what your ancestors have to fear is the coming ice age, of which we are well overdue.

    We should not worry about global warming but mechanisms to stop us from sliding back into an ice age.

    Temperature change has a wide variety of influences, of which CO2 is a very minor issue and which man made CO2 is totally miniscule.

    The one good thing is that while the spot light is on the $ based climate scientists, real scientists have the opportunity to really study the true climate, devoid of time based outcomes to meet political agenda's.
     
  45. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Taipan, you are taking the typical scatter gun approach. 10 minutes of research and you could find the answers for yourself. I will pick up on just two points.

    1) If its all about the money, what difference does it make whether the current rapid climate change is human induced or produced by an unknown mechanism? If it is unknown, then the need for research is more urgent as we are experiencing phenomenal climate change without a cause. Ponder, for a moment, do you really think that scientist (such as myself) are dishonest as to fabricate all this purely to make money?
    2) What comes first CO2 and then temperature change, or temperature change and then CO2 increase?

    It is a feedback cycle. Add CO2 and temperature goes up, add temperature and CO2 goes up. There are paleo examples of where temperature leads CO2 and examples of where CO2 leads temperature. To suggest that it only works one ways is pseudo scientific nonesense designed to confuse the gullible.

    Hill Billy
     
  46. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Im sorry Daj, but there are thousands of examples in the scientific, medical and research community around the world where data has been falsified, manipulated, or created, and where the data was made to fit the outcome. Scientists are no hollier then anybody else, in this respect.

    Money isnt the only motivating factor. Prestige amongst one's peers. "To be a world expert".

    I see your described as a climate scientist.

    Do you make money out of climate change?

    Would their be the same amount of research into climate change if it wasnt "deemed" by some climate scientists to be changing dramatically?

    Would their be the same amount of research into climate change if it wasnt "deemed" that man made green house gases were the major cause of climate change?

    The answer to question 2 and 3 is of course no.

    And again the answer to that is no it doesnt. However that was what the hockey stick was supposed to do and didnt. Manns work has been slowly bit by bit chipped away as inaccurate.

    Climate models touted as predicting future warming and based on the best global warming understanding to date suggest that the greatest warming caused by CO2 should be at the poles.

    [​IMG]

    However what we have has scientists scratching their heads. We have CO2 increasing over antartica to 365 ppm, while the majority of antarctica actually continues to slowly cool.

    If it isnt CO2 causing the warming what is causing the warming?

    Or is it warming?

    Data from non urban based weather stations also indicate a very slight cooling over the last 2 decades.
     
    #46 Taipan, Aug 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  47. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    The views I express on this website are my own and have nothing to do with my employment.

    I discuss the weather and climate on a few web-blogs because its been my passion from a young age (as has skiing, since I first became able to afford it).

    The issues you raise have all been dealt with before. Virtually everything you type is wrong (not miss guided, not confused, just plain 100% wrong - such as "Data from non urban based weather stations also indicate a very slight cooling over the last 2 decades."). Attempts to compare individual station series with CO2 is just plain stupid.

    Prehaps you might share with us:

    The source for your 2000 scientists, of which only have 60 have a PhD.

    The radiative theory which allows you to overturn 100 years of science to conclude...

    "Temperature change has a wide variety of influences, of which CO2 is a very minor issue and which man made CO2 is totally miniscule."

    Why you are so passionate in your belief that scientists are wrong, and the handful of advocates are right.

    The consequence of you being wrong, and the experts being right.

    Hill Billy
     
  48. frazels

    frazels One of Us

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Taipan, have you got a link for the source of that graph?

    very interesting.
     
  49. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Just click on the image and then go properties.

    John Daly died in 2004, but his site continues.

    Back shortly with the problem of CO2 v temperature causality which the global warming proponents cant explain.

    My apologies Vermillion. One more post and then ill let this get back on track.
     
  50. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    28,241
    Likes Received:
    3,553
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    daj you didnt answer any of my questions.

    Daj im not passionate in my belief that all scientists are wrong. Im passionate in my belief that real scientists are being ignored!

    In 1492 all the scientists and experts predicted that if you sailed to the edge of the horizon that you fell off the edge of the earth. At that time they were dealing with their most complex issue. Do you think human nature has changed in as little as 600 years?

    Im sure people like you wish people like me would go away. But we wont while the science isnt even close to be settled.

    But i will concede one thing. A battle has been won by the media/political/global warming proponents.

    They hold the high ground, which is good. But to use an analogy they have built their castle on the high ground, but it is a sandcastle, which sooner or later will collapse because it is built on weak foundations.

    Year by year real scientists are slowly moving forward, and attempting to explain the most complex system on the planet.

    Not only that they have to work damn hard to knock down vigourously defended science by people like you. But they have to get it right, and not be tempted to jump on the easy band wagon like so many suedo climate scientists.

    I mentioned the issue of CO2 v temperature.

    The conclusion of a statement by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
    Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
    Warsaw, Poland
    "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawedâ€. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science."


    Now for goodness sake - ignore your own personal opinions about George Bush. Prof Jaworowski has written 280 papers of which 20 are on climate change.

    Here is a copy of the statement.

    If you are trying to understand this issue about global warming, go and read his statement, and start asking questions!

    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

    The correlation between CO2 and temperature doesnt exist. The statement that 1998 as being the warmest in over 1000 years has been proved to be false, as well as numerous scientists ducking for cover and tactfully trying to say to Mann and others that you stuffed up, re CO2/temperature.
     
    #50 Taipan, Aug 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013