[diablo]

Odd, I seem to remember a few years back that the Australian PM (forget which one) said climate change was bunkum ??

Now it seems it has happened and they know quite enough about it, thank you Mr Scientist, your job is done - now get on yer bike.


Australia to sack hundreds of climate change scientists because it has learnt everything it needs to about basic global warming science | Science | News |

[Dazzler]

Yes, very contentious decision. It is obviously a money saving exercise but they often make the cuts in the wrong areas. It was our previous Prime minister Tony Abbott, he was a Rhodes Scholar you know!

[Doggie 1]

 
Tony, where are you?!

[Surferdude]

I'm unsure of the spin on this.
A guy I know who's generally pretty switched on tells me they are actually just being re-allocated, not losing their jobs. Time will tell.

[beerman]

The dude that runs the show, basically said that it is one area of science proving the problem, and a whole other area trying to come up with ways to minimise its impact.

Hence the prove it guys go, and the 'fix it' guys come in.

Also said because they were such awesome employers, their turnover was very low, so they were struggling to reward/encourage newer people with fresh and new ideas by promoting them within the organisation (and this making room for new entry level jobs).

Seemed a fairly reasonable argument

[bumpkin]

The UK has seen some of it's worst flooding over this Winter causing massive damage both short and long term.

Even here though, I am kind of relieved to hear the "correct" reporting and questioning going on.

Our politicians and media have been railroading us into believing it is all mankind's fault and particularly our generation of greedy, use up the resources without a care, drive my car around the corner to the shops and back type.

Yet this years reporting has taken a slight twist and it falls in line with my own thinking which I have expressed as an opinion on this forum before.  The reports this year have suddenly acknowledged that the UK has seen flooding on this scale before, hundreds of years ago even and as a result I watched a weekly magazine show just the other night asking whether this was actually just the planet going through a natural cycle.  Our meteorologists all agreed that this was not an unreasonable argument and that if climate change is a real threat that perhaps we are going about it the wrong way, as it could be that the time between events is altered by mankind and his lifestyle, but that the events will take place eventually anyway. 

It is not too long ago that we were being told that "Global Warming" was the issue, yet the data available pointed to an overall increase in the planets temperature of less than 0.5 deg C.  Subtly and without any public questioning the tag "Global Warming" was altered to "Climate Change".

As a Northern Hemisphere resident I can assure you that a slightly warmer and drier UK would not be a bad thing, yet here we are having been told that we were going to be imminently sweltering 25 years ago, still waiting for that particular Armageddon to occur.

Looking at the records for Aberdeen on this very week I can see that the highest temp it has been here was 16C in 1998, yet due to "global warming" just ten years later in 2008 the temperature had gone to..................................... -10C.  Yep 26C COLDER, a record.

I do think we have an effect, but telling me to put in a poxy low energy bulb in my house when the media are busy using electrickery like it is going out of fashion, our cities are full of massive electronic advertising boards and we have to highlight in massive floodlights every historical or historical to be landmark is laughable.

There are much bigger changes which could be made by much bigger corporations / governments etc but are left alone whilst the common man gets brow beaten.  IF they were really concerned and the science really backed them up would those changes not be being implemented?

The planet is bigger and more powerful than any of us, she sorted out the dinosaurs when they got too big for their boots, she will do it again.

[Shambles]

Nice one @bumpkin

We're doing our bit, here, by keeping the forum background dark

[Doggie 1]

I reckon it's a bit like the Millennium bug but on a much grander scale.
Complete and utter bumpkin. 

[Dazzler]

I agree with most of what you say Brian.

I have converted to Solar Panels, Solar Hot Water and almost 100% LED lighting mainly to save money.  I would however, encourage anyone else who can afford it, to do the same.

That much energy saving/renewable energy multiplied many thousand times would surely make some difference.

Obviously it is important that industry and government do the same. 

[Phil №❶]

I reckon it's a bit like the Millennium bug but on a much grander scale.
Complete and utter bumpkin. 

Disagree with that.

How can all the cars on the Earth putting out heat, not change the climate. The 20th century has put more heat into the air than all of the millenniums before it. It has to make a difference, not to mention industrial heat as well.

For the sake of our future generations, we need to begin to take action, however, politicians see it as an opportunity for a money grab which is definitely not the answer.

[Doggie 1]

I reckon it's a bit like the Millennium bug but on a much grander scale.
Complete and utter bumpkin. 

Disagree with that.

How can all the cars on the Earth putting out heat, not change the climate. The 20th century has put more heat into the air than all of the millenniums before it. It has to make a difference, not to mention industrial heat as well.

For the sake of our future generations, we need to begin to take action, however, politicians see it as an opportunity for a money grab which is definitely not the answer.

And yet the Antarctic Sea continues to grow...? 
And in any event, taxing the people of western countries is not going to make one iota of difference when countries such as India and China continue to pollute at will.

[bumpkin]

Agree Dazz, but as you know solar is expensive.
Electric and hybrid vehicles are significantly more expensive than their normally aspirated counterparts.
We are not yet advanced enough to properly harness wind and wave energy as a replacement source (it is ironic that wind turbines have to be locked off if the wind is too strong)

If world leaders cared then the grants and discounts on conventional appliances and vehicles would be much less and offset to encourage us to go solar or otherwise.  The biggest discounts / grants on heating systems in the UK exist on gas boilers, not on solar panels.

@Phil №❶, agree with you too about it not being a money grab.  I would however question whether more heat is being put out than in previous millennia, I consider the planets natural cycle that we are aware of and wonder why she went through the ages as she did and what our age will be called.  We can only know how much heat we are putting into the atmosphere by measurement, previous ages of man were unable to do that, it is all just guesswork and so we are basing today and tomorrows decisions on actually very limited recorded data over what is a very short time period.

It is about balance for me, as a population we are in the position of most of the planet now having the opportunity to afford combustion systems and with the electronic advancements we now need and use more conventional power systems than ever, we know enough about things to acknowledge that these systems all emit carbon gases and we also know that our flora and fauna love carbon gases, yet somehow our own natural filters are allowed to be eroded away to nothing, we can't just keep cutting down forests and expecting that to not have an effect too, more noise is made about our greedy use of fossil fuels than the greed which surrounds destroying the natural habitat which the planet needs in order to thrive.

Much has been made about the UK flooding this time and how our expansion into brown and green belt areas have resulted in more concrete than ever and so water has to find new ways to go.  Living in a rural area I can tell you about the more hidden stuff around that, the EU subsidises UK farmers to NOT work the land (thus preventing crop mountains), if they even plough it they loose their subsidy payment.  Net result is that the land itself resembles concrete and creates exactly the same problem as concrete itself.  Crazy.

[Phil №❶]

India and China are the world producers at the moment, due to their economies. They produce what the western world buys.

[Phil №❶]

agree with you too about it not being a money grab.  I would however question whether more heat is being put out than in previous millennia, I consider the planets natural cycle that we are aware of and wonder why she went through the ages as she did and what our age will be called.  We can only know how much heat we are putting into the atmosphere by measurement, previous ages of man were unable to do that, it is all just guesswork and so we are basing today and tomorrows decisions on actually very limited recorded data over what is a very short time period.

Well I disagree with this thinkiing too. Natural events of course added heat and CO₂ into the atmosphere, especially in the formation years of the Earth. However, these natural events are still occurring as well (volcanoes), as human input, so the cumulative effect must be greater, surely.

[bumpkin]

agree with you too about it not being a money grab.  I would however question whether more heat is being put out than in previous millennia, I consider the planets natural cycle that we are aware of and wonder why she went through the ages as she did and what our age will be called.  We can only know how much heat we are putting into the atmosphere by measurement, previous ages of man were unable to do that, it is all just guesswork and so we are basing today and tomorrows decisions on actually very limited recorded data over what is a very short time period.

Well I disagree with this thinkiing too. Natural events of course added heat and CO₂ into the atmosphere, especially in the formation years of the Earth. However, these natural events are still occurring as well (volcanoes), as human input, so the cumulative effect must be greater, surely.

This may be true and while the published data does indeed show a rise in global temp since 1880, in the period between then and now shows a less than 1C rise in temp, what we cannot say with any certainty is whether that rise would have taken place anyway.
I think we do have a responsibility to ensure that we are minimising our effect, but without knowing what the natural effect should be that it is very difficult to know if we are doing the right thing.
I guess as pawns of our respective governments (of whatever persuasion) we are always to be fed conflicting data and views, it keeps our attention diverted whilst they do things they don't want us to spot.

[Phil №❶]

The difficulty is the time period to measure differences, it is huge, by our standards. I tend to think that millions of cars and industry that have never been present before must have an effect on temperature. I think that the effect is quite rapid by world weather standards and we need to get off the fossil fuel cycle and think smarter. This won't happen of course, because we are all inextricably mixed up in the global economy which is full of graft, corruption and opportunism.

[ibrokeit]

Just throwing this in for a laugh - I realise just the polar ice caps is probably a lot more complicated than this.  And it really applies more to floating ice... so this more applies to Arctic - mostly no land under it - than Antarctic - which has mostly a landmass (in whose case the water would mostly run-off into the oceans) but...

I don't get how the polar ice caps melting is going to cause big changes in sea-level... ice is volume-metrically larger than the water volume that makes it, being water is a little odd in expanding when freezing - i.e. less dense.   So you are going to get 'less' water than the ice it makes...

[ibrokeit]

Actually I have heard that being used to argue sea-levels won't rise.

Just as I have heard people argue that polar ice melting will rise sea-levels by the (edit:) entire volume of ice melting - neglecting that some of that ice is floating (thereby displacing water - theoretically the same amount as what it will melt into).

[Phil №❶]

The sea will rise, because MORE ice is melting, glacier's too, than has melted over the centuries before it. Humans have populated some territories that are quite vulnerable to this fluctuation, causing housing difficulties. I'm sure this has always been happening, but only in modern times has it accelerated to noticeable levels.

Satellite photos show unequivocal evidence of this phenomenon.

[ibrokeit]

The sea will rise, because MORE ice is melting, glacier's too, than has melted over the centuries before it. Humans have populated some territories that are quite vulnerable to this fluctuation, causing housing difficulties. I'm sure this has always been happening, but only in modern times has it accelerated to noticeable levels.

Satellite photos show unequivocal evidence of this phenomenon.

Oh I totally agree it will rise as the ice melts (for the exact reason of not all ice is floating but due to location will quickly end up there when it melts), it already appears to be happening... very low elevation inhabited atolls with areas that regularly flood with certain tides which didn't used to.  Course, in the atoll cases, there isn't any real way to know if it has happened there recently but prior to humans having arrived and/or started recording such things, but the fact it started doing it after 100+ years of records indicates change.

To me the big question is... how much will it really rise?   Not 'worst case' prediction because a) I want people to watch my tv show/movie; or b) I want much more funding for my company so it better look dire; or c) I want you to vote for me/my party at the elections; so lets assume all the melting ice adds its volume (i.e. no ice is floating), etc., etc..

And, of course, the answer to that question isn't simple at all, because not only is the volume of the melting/ed ice a factor, but also how the temperature of it effects the temperature of oceanic and atmospheric currents, which combined generate our weather.  As, when it all boils down to it, it is all about energy moving around.

Also agree on the humans populating vulnerable territories - often cities are/were built around rivers and/or the mouths of them for easy access to water and for ease of trade.   Unfortunately they also tend to be prone to flooding from the same rivers that gave them life.   And near the mouth of such to tides/storm surges and other changes in sea level.

[Surferdude]

The total amount of ice in Antarctica is equivalent  to approximately a 50 m rise in sea levels. However, some of it (the West Antarctica) section is seated underwater. The Eastern section (which I believe is substantially bigger) is all above sea level. So any significant melting could easily cause a meter or two increase in sea levels. The least inflammatory reports I have found over the last few years suggest this scenario is highly likely by the end of this century.
Recent observations have indicated an increase in the Antarctic ice shelf - probably due to increased heat due to ozone depletion in the southern hemisphere..
But clear observations and photos show the Arctic is losing ice and a significant number of glaciers have disappeared  or severely shrunk in recent years.
So, what does all this mean?
In my humble opinion it highlights the fact that human pollution AND the raping of major forest areas in South America, Indonesia and so on, should be curtailed as a matter of urgency. Whether we use exaggerated facts to argue for or against this is IMHO somehow irrelevant.

But, as has been said, there are too many one sided agendas out there for us common folk to get enough facts to make a balanced decision.

I believe they've already noted some minor oceanic current changes due to ice melting which in turn cause's lowered salinity levels affecting currents.

The slight changes in ocean current and temperatures is what is giving us our sporadic weather conditions, once the salinity levels reach critical and ocean currents are affected to the extreme is when the globe will see it's next cycle change moving into another ice age.

This cycle has happened before, most recently after the dinosaurs but with humans adding so much pollutants into the atmosphere the effects of this cycle change are creeping along faster than it should but it would happen eventually anyway.

[Paolo5]

In my humble opinion it highlights the fact that human pollution AND the raping of major forest areas in South America, Indonesia and so on, should be curtailed as a matter of urgency. Whether we use exaggerated facts to argue for or against this is IMHO somehow irrelevant.

But, as has been said, there are too many one sided agendas out there for us common folk to get enough facts to make a balanced decision.

I agree wholeheartedly!

[sheepman]

every country should get rid of them its a complete con,of course there is climate change but its a natural cycle ,its all happened before possible a minute percentage is now man made but i mean minute there is little we can do so why not just accept it ,here in uk we got invaded by the romans about 2000 years ago they did not complain as it was a warmer climate then they even grew grapes in scotland ,they buggered of back to italy when it got colder and certainly would not grow grapes today hardly even in a greenhouse far less outside

[Phil №❶]

I disagree.

I would hardly describe the amount of toxic and greenhouse gasses emitted by machines as "minute". I don't recall reading about industrialization or motor vehicle contributions on Earth prior to their invention, so it hasn't happened before IMO.

[beerman]

I reckon we do a lot of things to 'be safe just in case'. So even if you don't believe there is a problem, what does it hurt to reduce emissions. Worst case your just making our little planet a nicer place to live.....

[Dazzler]

I reckon we do a lot of things to 'be safe just in case'. So even if you don't believe there is a problem, what does it hurt to reduce emissions. Worst case your just making our little planet a nicer place to live.....

Well said beerman. Very true!

[ibrokeit]

I reckon we do a lot of things to 'be safe just in case'. So even if you don't believe there is a problem, what does it hurt to reduce emissions. Worst case your just making our little planet a nicer place to live.....

You have got it! Here here!

I recycle what I can, I don't litter, I would like an organics bin (but I rent and it seems it would complicate things), so on and so forth - why do I do those things... to reduce impact on the environment and attempt to help make the planet a nicer place to live - albeit a minuscule contribution... but it all adds up.  Because lets face it - anyone who has ever lived has had some impact (both positively and negatively) on the environment... people who go on about 1000 years ago people didn't impact the environment are deluded - the impacts were different and may have been less but building a wooden shelter, having fires for warmth and cooking, etc. had impacts.

Do I believe that environmental changes, areas getting atypical storms, etc., etc., we are seeing now are only because of human activity (which certain groups try to make out it is)?  No - there have been many cycles (some over years and/or decades) others over millennia in the environment that would fall under the label 'climate change' but AFAWK humans had nothing to do with them.

Do I believe human activity is the major thing behind environmental changes? Undecided.

Do I believe that humans have had an impact/effect on things we are associating with environmental changes?  YES - almost certainly a negative one of some kind (but is it the major driver).  Should we try to reduce and/or eliminate those - YES.  But in human society, as it most commonly is everywhere, you need to have the resources to survive and make more resources if you want to use those for whatever purpose (such as improving the environment) is desired.   And when you are talking about being environmentally friendly you have to think full life cycle (which many don't).

And there becomes the problem, if it involves more resources to fix something, or make something that is 'more green' (or more efficient - so theoretically green), than will be returned by fixing it, or making/using the 'less green' option, then doing the fix is actually causing damage (overall).

Even using the 'green' option can damage the environment unintentionally - apparently in NZ some wind turbines for power generation were installed... and it was since found a rare moss (or small form of plant) downwind is now decreasing in number.  It would appear it is because the wind currents have, of course, been effected/altered by turbines which had a knock on effect (I am not sure if it is because those currents no longer flow over the ground with the nutrients/moisture they carry, or do so but with more force, or are drier, etc.).   So the green option has damaged the environment in that instance.

[ibrokeit]

I put forward the following two examples to be thought on - not as hard fast 'stick to my guns' facts - the first I don't know what the answer is overall (I suspect overall CFLs are more green than traditional bulbs if they go full-life of operating hours).  The second has had many 'reports' and claims promoting one, or other, type as 'better'... almost all are sponsored by one, or the other, 'side'.  The very few which aren't sponsored in some form reportedly seem to indicate they are about equal per use.  It has been years since I looked into such reports on the impacts - things may have changed - and I am not going to go try find them.  I am simply pointing out how there can be complicated, and hidden, impacts to 'green' products which means they are less so than they appear.

• Light Bulbs - CFL vs Incandescent - Incandescents are simpler to make and have less materials in them but use a lot more energy in use.  CFLs have many more materials (electronics, PCB, etc. etc.) and are more complex to make (and so is the components that make them) but use a lot less energy in use.   Energy production (to light them) of course uses resources in creation so that needs to be factored in too. As I said, I don't know which it is - haven't seen reports, etc., but I suspect from a full life cycle perceptive - if it took into account all resources used... CFLs will still be more green.
• Disposable vs Cloth Nappies - Claiming disposables are in anyway green to cloth proponents can be like starting WWIII And there are many variables which can effect working this one out in either case - from how often nappy changes occur to which cleaning agents are used to hygiene perception of (e.g. hot water vs warm water wash) to how a disposable is disposed of.  The last one is often contentious - but remember they are bio-degradable just like many other things are stated and tested to be, and remember that they (just like many other 'bio-degradable' things) aren't disposed of in a manner that allows it to happen.  But for studies it has to be assumed they are disposed of in that manner e.g. like it is assumed everything else biodegradable is.. in a bio-degradable manner.
  
  A big claim of cloth nappy proponents is 're-use' - i.e. they don't get thrown away after a single use therefore (seemingly just because of that) they are more green because they get used many times but made once.   Okay - that ratio is very high and in theory that is good.  And, of course, you 'just' wash them and they can be used again.   But that "just wash" is something that seems to be ignored/overlooked (because washing clothes is something so common), or maybe purposely not stated/considered, by many...
  
  In regards to washing... what is the impact of, each of which is used as many times as a nappy is washed, the: making electricity to run the washing machine (and dryer if used) for each use? and power to heat the water used? the resources needed to make the detergent/laundry powder/soap/softeners? water and chemical use if soaked in bleach before washing? the resources to actually make the washer and dryer (minuscule per wash but...)? resources to process the dirty water from wash (sewerage treatment)? etc., etc.
  
  And, of course, assuming only cotton for the cloth nappy - the resources in land/water/power of growing that cotton, and processing it into the end product.  Of course re-usable nappy covers are usually made with waterproof artificial/man-made material - often used even by those proporting all the 'naturalness' of cloth - which also have a manufacture cost.
  
  Disposables are manufactured using artificial materials, but many of those materials can be made from recycled materials (or by-products from other processes - e.g. oil refineries making fuel) - which theoretically decreases the impact (increases 'greeness') on the environment. And, of course, that needs to be taken into account just as any 'new' raw material use needs to be as well. As well as all the resources to put the materials together into a product.
  
  So apparently when it is all weighed up, as much as it can be, disposables and cloth are about as green as each other per use - yes disposables are used once and cloth is reused, but although the impacts appear at different places the overall impacts are about equal per use. In other words using cloth because it is '100% green' or 'doesn't harm the environment', etc. isn't actually really true per sae.
  

[ibrokeit]

Oh and if you don't think you can recycle disposable nappies.... think again.   Actually not just nappies, other disposable hygiene products (which they call Absorbent Hygiene Products) as well...

Knowaste.com - Knowaste in Action - the issue has been however, the cost of doing it (resources used) and return from recycled product sold, compared to the cost the usual disposal methods for the region.  Seems the costs for the usual methods are increasing significantly in the UK and so it is becoming quite viable.   There is also the advantage that the supply isn't really 'seasonal' - it doesn't increase/decrease or change materials through out the year.


Of course one thing that gets me where I live - you can't recycle plastic bags through the rubbish collection (they need to go into general rubbish) where as in my much smaller home-city you can.  Though it is requested that you bundle them together - apparently someone came up with a way to recycle them into plastic posts or similar and the process can stand a reasonable amount of 'contamination' (e.g. receipts left in bags).