Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 17 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!
iceman
12-Jun-2009
12:27:55 PM
"or meterorites which will certainly hit the earth and kill millions at some point in time."

No way, I don't believe it. Tony, show me your proof that meterorites have EVER hit the earth before. You're being a Meteor Strike Alarmist...

Good on you Evan, stick it to the man

Must go for a climb with you soon

Gav
lacto
12-Jun-2009
12:44:56 PM
>If I'm going to be forced to pay an extra $2050 tax each year, I'd like
>to see it helping the environment rather than being frittered away on political
>nonsense.
>
tony $2050 tax per year seems quite a precise figure , how exactly have you arrived at this ? over the australian population ? adults , tax payers and if so at what rate stun us all with your marvellous graphs and logic to show how you have pulled this figure . Or are you relying on the same type of people providing figures as may well have provided the senarios for global warming .
Personally i feel that pv panels on the majority of homes and work places , solar hot water or preheating water throughout australia and large numbers of wind farms would be a huge environmental improvement than running huge coal fired power stations (that are only around 30 % efficient in converting their energy to electricity ) and in Victoria's case are about the heaviest power polluters in the world .
TonyB
12-Jun-2009
12:52:25 PM
On 12/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 12/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>>What if you are wrong?
>You've dodged again.

OK. Let me put it this way for you.

If global warming continues, in 516 years time Melbourne will have a climate as nice as Sydney's.

However, what is really terrifying, if the current cooling trend continues, in a mere 160 years, we in Sydney will have to cope with a climate like Melbourne !!!


evanbb
12-Jun-2009
1:14:41 PM
On 12/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 12/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>On 12/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>>>What if you are wrong?
>>You've dodged again.
>
>OK. Let me put it this way for you.
>
>If global warming continues, in 516 years time Melbourne will have a climate
>as nice as Sydney's.
>
>However, what is really terrifying, if the current cooling trend continues,
>in a mere 160 years, we in Sydney will have to cope with a climate like
>Melbourne !!!
>
>

What an incredibly juvenille response. Oh well, I've got what I wanted out of this.
TonyB
15-Jun-2009
9:19:50 AM
On 12/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 12/06/2009 TonyB wrote:

>>If global warming continues, in 516 years time Melbourne will have a
>climate as nice as Sydney's.
>>
>>However, what is really terrifying, if the current cooling trend continues,
>>in a mere 160 years, we in Sydney will have to cope with a climate like
>>Melbourne !!!
>>
>
>What an incredibly juvenille response.

Ask a juvenile question ... you get a juvenile response. Hopefully my juvenile response highlights the stupidity of the "global warming" issue.

For those interested in the calculations ... take the difference of the mean annual max and min temperatures for Sydney and Melbourne and divide by the rate of warming over the past century and the rate of cooling since the IPCC2001 report. So much for climate alarm !

In summary:

1. The world was warmer than currently during the Medieval Warm Period, 800 years ago.

2. The world has been warming for 180 years since the Little Ice Age

3. There is no "unprecedented" recent warming - 1910 to 1940 had the same rate of warming as the past 30 years, despite having 14% of the current fossil fuel burning.

4. There has been no warming for 11 years.

5. The world has been cooling strongly since IPCC2001

6. There is no evidence that man's CO2 has caused any significant warming.

7. Ice core data shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800-1000 years

8. IPCC forecasts are based on computer models that assume unstable, positive feedbacks ... their forecasts have been proven incorrect. IPCC models ignore the effect of solar cosmic rays and their effects on clouds.

9. The sun has entered it's most quiet period since the Little Ice Age ... there is a good probability that the current cooling trend will continue.


evanbb
15-Jun-2009
9:28:16 AM
On 15/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>In summary:


Can someone else take this apart. I've had enough. We can't let him win the war through attrition, by completely ignoring the other posts, and getting up on the soapbox every day and redeclaring the same nonsense that has been refuted day in and day out. Every one of those points have been addressed in the science, and I very much doubt that picking 2 Cities in Australia indicates anything about anything.
Wendy
15-Jun-2009
10:15:01 AM
On 15/06/2009 TonyB wrote:

So you've been referred to these before. but seeing you insist on repeating yourself, here they are again. If you have something to say in response to them, that'd be nice. If you are just going to repeat yourself, please go have a nice cup of tea instead. In the meanwhile, I note on "Nature's Great Events" David Attenborough seems quite concerned about those poor old polar bears. Apparently 2007 was the greatest arctic sea ice melt recorded.

>In summary:
>
>1. The world was warmer than currently during the Medieval Warm Period,
>800 years ago.


http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.php

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/it-was-warmer-during-holocene-climatic.php

>
>2. The world has been warming for 180 years since the Little Ice Age
>
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/12/we-are-just-recovering-from-lia.php

>3. There is no "unprecedented" recent warming - 1910 to 1940 had the same
>rate of warming as the past 30 years, despite having 14% of the current
>fossil fuel burning.
>
>4. There has been no warming for 11 years.
>


http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/temperatures-plummeted-in-2008.php
>5. The world has been cooling strongly since IPCC2001

see above

>6. There is no evidence that man's CO2 has caused any significant warming.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.php
>
>7. Ice core data shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases
>by 800-1000 years

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php
>
>8. IPCC forecasts are based on computer models that assume unstable, positive
>feedbacks ... their forecasts have been proven incorrect. IPCC models
>ignore the effect of solar cosmic rays and their effects on clouds.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php
>
>9. The sun has entered it's most quiet period since the Little Ice Age
>... there is a good probability that the current cooling trend will continue.
>
>

whilst not exactly talking about the current cooling, this does explain why the solar cycles don't explain climate change
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php










evanbb
15-Jun-2009
10:34:33 AM
Thankyou very much Ms Wendy.
Lurking Dave
15-Jun-2009
11:28:42 AM
That was a very nice rebuttal Wendy, perhaps TonyB will take some time to read the responses and do some research.

TonyB Let me present to you a different perspective. Whether or not you believe in the science, there has been over the past 25 years a shift in the consciousness of people across the planet such that now there is a political imperative that change is required and inevitable. Over the coming decade we will move towards a carbon constrained economy requiring a paradigm shift in the way we live our lives.

Is now not a good time to move beyond the rhetoric and develop solutions to living in this new environment?

anthonyk
15-Jun-2009
11:39:50 AM
basically i'd say in summary, climate change is a complex enough topic that if you are driven enough to want a particular conclusion, you can pick and choose all sorts of data to make yourself sound right.

but if you have the slightest idea about methodology, something thats covered in first year stats & scientific methods & you don't need a phd for, and you are open to all the available, current data, it overwhelmingly shows that anthropogenic effects are clear, present and real.

so much of CC skeptics literature is based on really dodgy tricks that would never be publishable, for example choosing an outlier as a starting point to give a distorted trend, because they don't have to pass as science, they're about public opinion. if people see CC topics as a threat to their pay packet, all they need is a steady stream of pseudoscience and confirmation bias will do the rest.

but its not science, and you're not going to get anywhere by trying to pretend it is.
jono_1
15-Jun-2009
4:16:11 PM
On 9/06/2009 R James wrote:
>On 9/06/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>>No. Am wondering whether you got the information from the report yourself
>>and interprested it yourself or whether you ripped it all from a website
>>that typed out what was written in the report.....
>>
>>
>>From SMH today
>>
>>SCIENTISTS have criticised the Family First Senator, Steve Fielding,
>for
>>promoting "misinformation" that the sun could be to blame for recent
>global
>>warming.
>>>
>>The conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate
>>change had been accepted by more than 70 of the world's science academies.
>"
>>
>It seems a bit too convenient to make this statement, and ignore 31,000
>scientists who have signed a document opposing acceptance of the anthropogenic
>hypothesis.
>
>There's a lot of mixed research conclusions on the influence of solar
>activity, and looking at periods such as Maunder and Dalton, and the corresponding
>temperature dip, it's had not to recognise the correlation. If Fielding
>has picked up something new on this at the conference, I'd like to hear
>it.
>
>I expect he's also stuck on the same main problems I have. There's no
>real data to back up the hypothesis of increased carbon dioxide causing
>significant warming (if anyone has any, I'd like to see it.) The other
>big issue is that this whole global warming thing is based on computer
>models that assume positive feedback. To date, these models have totally
>failed to match real data - specifically, they failed to predict the cooling
>over the past 10 years (or 12 years depending on which data set is used.)
>In scientific circles, a model isn't considered valid until it's predicted
>actual data. Yet, we're about to change the world based on these failed
>models. This might be clever politics, but it's not good science.

31000 scientists yeh of which over 3000 have qualifications in medicine and 10000 in engineering!! This comes straight from the organisers website http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
I

IdratherbeclimbingM9
15-Jun-2009
4:22:40 PM
On 15/06/2009 jono_1 wrote:
>31000 scientists yeh of which over 3000 have qualifications in medicine
>and 10000 in engineering!!

Overkill.
You only needed one with a railway background!

HehHeh!
one day hero
15-Jun-2009
4:42:30 PM
On 15/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Can someone else take this apart. I've had enough. We can't let him win
>the war through attrition

Dude, you're not going to convince him because
a) he's a true believer and
b) he appears to be a knob

I don't think there's too much chance of Tony's big ideas spreading amongst people on this site as most folk on chocky seem smart enough to sort real arguments from fluff. Just let it go
one day hero
15-Jun-2009
4:58:41 PM
The silly thing is that Tony has acually brought up a few good points, which will be totally ignored because they're wrapped in nutso bullcrap.

For instance, there is lots of money getting thrown around, much is being wasted and much more will be wasted in the future. This is something which should be discussed and most lefty, global warming types will still be concerned about getting best value for money from carbon reduction investment.

I was shocked on a recent trip to Germany to see acres of PV panels lining the roofs of barns, houses and sheds, admired by the pastey white locals. All heavily subsidised, all tipped up at 50ish degrees.....I shook my head thinking about how low the outputs would be as the poor photons slant through the cloud and fog. It would seem much more sensible to mount those millions of dollars worth of silicon somewhere sunny. Maybe restricting their use to bits of the world where people have black skin or high rates of melanoma?

anthonyk
15-Jun-2009
6:24:52 PM
On 15/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>The silly thing is that Tony has acually brought up a few good points,
>which will be totally ignored because they're wrapped in nutso bullcrap.
>
>For instance, there is lots of money getting thrown around, much is being
>wasted and much more will be wasted in the future. ...
>
>I was shocked on a recent trip to Germany to see acres of PV panels lining
>the roofs of barns, houses and sheds, admired by the pastey white locals. ..

yeah the usual knee-jerk reaction, any money spent on anything enviro related is money wasted isn't it.

the german program is actually a pretty good example for this. do you think they're spending the money just to feel warm and fuzzy inside regardless of the inefficiency? this is germans you're talking about after all.. the solar program isn't about hype driven waste, its about investing in the economy of the future.

to... wait for it... make more money, and create jobs.

oil-burners don't seem to get that the status quo thats putting a few easy dollars in their pockets right now is very short sighted and not going to keep cruising along the same for ever.

Pat
15-Jun-2009
6:50:56 PM
More importantly, M9, how do you do that little superscript Heh? That looks cool.

evanbb
15-Jun-2009
6:54:51 PM
On 15/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>I was shocked on a recent trip to Germany to see acres of PV panels lining
>the roofs of barns, houses and sheds, admired by the pastey white locals.
>All heavily subsidised, all tipped up at 50ish degrees.....I shook my head
>thinking about how low the outputs would be as the poor photons slant through
>the cloud and fog. It would seem much more sensible to mount those millions
>of dollars worth of silicon somewhere sunny. Maybe restricting their use
>to bits of the world where people have black skin or high rates of melanoma?

I'm actually with you on this point Hero. Yes the Germans in general know what they're doing, but there's also a layer of Democratic elections over the top of that. PV tariffs subsidised by the Government are not, in my opinion, the best way for the Government to get renewables onto the grid. They are however a terrific way to show that the Government cares, and get everyone thinking about renewables. It was discussed on the "old Rock Star" thread in pretty good detail.

But, this is definitely what I want to focus on, and the bit I am actually open minded about (I will readily admit I am closed minded about solar flares and other such nonsense.)How are wegoing to fix the problem?


So, here's Evan's cost-effective solutions to Climate Change.

We need to act fast, and cheap. First thing I'd to is put solar thermal boosting systems on all the coal fired power plants with decent insolation rates. Lets be frank, we are not likely to de-com all our coal infrastructure in a few year. Probably not even 20. By adding HTT (high-temperature thermal) straight onto the existing plant, you get to use all the steam to electricity generating capacity, plus the existing electricity infrastructure, at the lowest possible cost.

Then, I'd find somewhere on the existing grid, with high insolation, and close to existing nat gas infrastructure. CSIRO have been playing with using HTT to reform nat gas, to make a higher energy gas that ca be burnt later. So you store the thermal energy in the form of hydrogen, which raises the calorific value of the fuel, then it can just sit there until you need the power, Then you fire this through a pretty normal gas turbine for power on demand. Base-Load problems of renewables disappear. I'd also roll out millions of wind turbines in the most efficient places. Wind is by far the the most cost effective technology, but notoriously peaky. Phase out Coal ASAP, replace with fancy peaking gas turbines, and there's your 30% reduction.

Done.

ajfclark
15-Jun-2009
7:15:14 PM
On 15/06/2009 Pat wrote:
>More importantly, M9, how do you do that little superscript Heh? That looks cool.

<sup>superscript</sup> = superscript
climberman
15-Jun-2009
7:32:25 PM
Another reason for Germany being so keen on power production from a domestic point of view is that they are a net importer of power from other nations. Power production therefore has both a financial and political edge over and above us here, who have so much coal it's stupid. Even if Victoria's brown sludge excuse for coal is so awful it couldn't be sold internationally, it's very well located near the largest urban centre in the state. The economics are very different for the Germans.

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
10:11:01 AM
The Honourable Senator Fielding (a dangerous idiot, voted in by .3% of Victoria's population, and has control of the Senate!) has at least been convinced that solar activity is nothing to do with temperature changes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/16/2599244.htm

Maybe you should give him a call Tones? Might not be too late to sway him.

 Page 17 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints