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 5 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!
TonyB
24-May-2009
8:29:41 AM
On 23/05/2009 lacto wrote:
> To try to belittle the truth and relevance of a report because of it's
>"railway engineering chief "

Sorry, I should have also mentioned the true believer's other god, the ex polly, Al Gore.

When there is no evidence whatsoever ( PLEASE show us some if you have any ... I'm still waiting ), when global temperatures are falling, and believers rely on blind faith in a government panel and an ex polly, GW is clearly a religion, not a science.

>>Valid arguments...
Valid arguments for what ? There is nothing unusual about the rising and falling of global temperatures. That is what climate does. The alarmists claim there is supposed to be abnormal warming when the world is actually cooling ... how stupid is that ?

If you'd like to look at other time periods, try 1940 to 1970, which also showed a cooling trend ... or the period from 800 to 400 years ago which showed strong cooling ... or the very rapid warming 10,000 years ago at the start of the current interglacial.

True believers can take heart though, as surely as the sun rises and sets there will eventually be a second coming (of warming). If solar activity is a primary cause of climate, true believers will have to wait for at least 20 years though. This will give them plenty of time to search for that still elusive smoking gun, that elusive evidence that man's CO2 is causing warming ... good luck ... they will need it !

evanbb
24-May-2009
10:10:13 AM
On 24/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>When there is no evidence whatsoever ( PLEASE show us some if you have
>any ... I'm still waiting ), when global temperatures are falling, and
>believers rely on blind faith in a government panel and an ex polly, GW
>is clearly a religion, not a science.

Tony, there's pages and pages of evidence here, and you're making it more and more obvious that you don't care. I've said my piece, and by now I bet everyone else has made their own minds up. You're talking to yourself now.


wallwombat
24-May-2009
1:48:58 PM
He was talking to himself about two pages ago.
Paul
24-May-2009
2:11:21 PM
On 14/05/2009 jkane wrote:
>Ex Federal Minister Ian Campbell attempted to block the Bald Hills windfarm
>development back in 2006 citing the risk to the endangered Orange Bellied
>Parrot. The report he cited actually concluded that the effect would be
>"very small even barely noticeable - compared with natural mortality".
> It did say it would have a negative impact but it suggested that it should
>be offset by mitigation and conservation measures.

He did the same thing around 2005ish, advocated the removal of alpine grazing while in opposition however when he was minister for the environment he supported the cattle graziers and tried to get alpine cattle grazing herritage listed. He was playing the politicl game and supporting the side which suited him best at the time, in the business of trying to get re elected.
R James
24-May-2009
2:15:33 PM
I think that you'd have to agree that :

1. Looking at the long term global temperature trend (more than 2,000 years), there doesn't seem to be anything unusual happening now.

2. High levels of carbon dioxide in the past haven't resulted in thermal runaway.

3. It does seem strange that, despite a 5% increase in CO2 in the past decade, there's been no sign of warming, and this trend is continuing.

4. The dependence of global temperature on CO2, is only a theory, and is yet to be backed up by real data.

5. The IPCC computer models have so far failed to match real data, and as such, are yet to demonstrate that they have any validity.

6. More and more scientists, some of whom were previously involved with the IPCC, are expressing doubts about the validity of anthropogenic warming.

7. All this talk about consensus is nonsense. Firstly, there is far from consensus among qualified scientists on this theory, and secondly science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by testing theory against real data.

8. Many scientists agree that increasing CO2 could potentially result in a direct very small warming effect. However, it's what happens next that's important. The IPCC models assume that increased evaporation will result in an increase in water vapour - the major greenhouse gas - leading to more warming (forcing). They hope that it doesn't lead to increased cloud, which has the opposite effect (negative feedback). History suggests that the latter is more likely to dominate, making climate self regulating.

9 At most temperature has increased 0.7 degC over the past 160 years, with no increase in the past 10 years (not a magnitude that you'd notice). Yet, the IPCC claims global warming is happening faster than expected. Doesn't this seem somewhat illogical?

Let me know if any of the above seems incorrect.

evanbb
24-May-2009
2:25:07 PM
On 24/05/2009 R James wrote:
>I think that you'd have to agree that :
No. I thouroughly disagree with every point.

Please read the rest of the thread, and the massive resources available on the internet linked through the posts.

>Let me know if any of the above seems incorrect.

Not incorrect, but a complete fabrication. Straight out of the La Raouche handbook for obfuscation and prevarication.

evanbb
24-May-2009
2:46:18 PM
On 24/05/2009 R James wrote:

Oh, and by the way thanks for joining the forum R_James. I'm glad this was your first post.

Do yo do much climbing?

Or did TonyB entice you in with the promise that "we've got them on the run now mate."

evanbb
24-May-2009
2:58:01 PM
For those that like reading here are a couple of links about how Exxon has hired big tobacco to help with their plan to "reposition climate change as theory, not fact", using tactics developed during the famous drive to prevent cigarette smoking, and the counter drive to destroy the credibility of the science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp

The key is media, and increasingly 'new media'. I see it a lot on Crikey. There's a pretty hardcore group of posters there, (like Chocky), and every climate change topic brings a deluge of nonsense from people who rarely post on any other topics, make no attempt to engage with the facts, and constantly move their position on the issue, while continually demanding unequivocal proof of their latest stance.

R James
24-May-2009
4:16:40 PM
Interesting that you disagree with every point : let's see -

Point 1 - if you can see something unusual happening with climate that hasn't naturally happen in the past, let me know.

Point 2 - a fact of history.

Point 3 - a scientific fact - I don't see how you could dispute this.

Point 4 - If you can find real data on this, I'd like to know of it.

Point 5 - if you can show an ipcc that predicts the current lack of warming, I'l like to see it.

Point 6 and 7 - can't disagree with these.

Point 8 - I'l be interested to know what specifically you'd find wrong here.

Point 9 - data taken direct from the Hadley centre. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

My climbing is mainly outdoor rock faces, but I admit to a preference for surfing when conditions suit.

Icarus
24-May-2009
6:10:14 PM
On 24/05/2009 R James wrote:

>Point 9 - data taken direct from the Hadley centre. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te
>perature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Interestingly, going to the home page of that site (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk) is a really good source of
climate change infomation, with everything referenced to publications and journals.
They also produce nice, simple posters like this
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/posters/2006-09-CMG-how-and-why.pdf
Wendy
24-May-2009
7:19:41 PM
I'm beginning to think that Evan's links must point to different pages on different computers. From my computer, they point to pages that in great detail, with many references, in lay english refute all points raised plus a few more. But if that's not enough, you can find other peeople doing the same thing on http://www.skepticalscience.com/ or http://cce.890m.com/ or http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/. Fortuneately, all these people are saving us a bunch of typing and you can find all the evidence you like neatly packaged under each objection.

As an aside, solarcycle24 looked like a bunch of backyarders looking out for solar flares and auroras. I'm not sure where we were supposed to find evidence of solar cycles and global warming on it.
R James
24-May-2009
8:31:46 PM
Wendy - you might do better with http://www.solen.info/solar/. This shows the current level of activity, and you can see previous cycles. It won't give you information on correlation with climate change. However, there's strong correlation with the Dalton minimum, and Maunder minimum, and global temperature. You can find this quite easily with a simple search. You won't read in in the press, as it's not politically popular at the moment. Let me know if you need some links for this.

Solar cycle is about 2 years late in starting, and all indications are that it will be a weak cycle. Historically, if this is true, we will come into a cooling period. Strange that it's not world headlines. The problem is that it doesn't make money, or get governments elected.
TonyB
25-May-2009
7:11:31 AM
On 24/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Tony, there's pages and pages of evidence here,

For heavens sake, if there are "pages of evidence" rather than pages of government report filler, give it your best shot ... TELL US !! ... put it in your one words why you believe man's CO2 is causing global cooling ... or warming.

True believers shouldn't find it so hard to express why they follow their railway engineer and politician gods, should they ?

Could it be that it really is blind faith ? You can't find any evidence ????

evanbb
25-May-2009
8:23:34 AM
On 25/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>For heavens sake, if there are "pages of evidence" rather than pages of
>government report filler, give it your best shot ... TELL US !! ... put
>it in your one words why you believe man's CO2 is causing global cooling
>... or warming.
>
>True believers shouldn't find it so hard to express why they follow their
>railway engineer and politician gods, should they ?

I have outlined in extroardinary detail what's going on, and you have studiously ignored everything I have written.

I am not a 'believer', that's what religion is for. It is cold, hard science. And I'm not going to repeat myself again.

GravityHound
25-May-2009
9:08:04 AM
>For heavens sake, if there are "pages of evidence" rather than pages of
>government report filler, give it your best shot ... TELL US !! ... put
>it in your one words why you believe man's CO2 is causing global cooling
>... or warming.

Why is CO2 affecting the climate? Due to it's physical properties, it absorbs heat that is radiated by the earth. Pretty simple really.

>
>True believers shouldn't find it so hard to express why they follow their
>railway engineer and politician gods, should they ?

This is what I find somewhat amusing in your whole argument Tony. You fail to see the irony in this - because some guy is a railway engineer he doesn't have the ability to work on CC. Yet you (profession unknown) have so far in this thread claimed to know better than;
- said railway engineer and a few thousand climate scientists and,
- the staff of the Hadley Centre who, on their website, have used the data you have plotted to show cooling to develop a lot of information to support the notion that CO2 is MAKING A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION (not causing) CC.


>Could it be that it really is blind faith ? You can't find any evidence
>????

The evidence is there, you are either not willing to accept it or your understanding of the science is rudimentary enough that you are willing to argue against it.

Like Evan I am willing to put up with some personal pain and sacrifice something for the greater good. You are not willing to do this, so be it. It doesn't frustrate me that I give money to charities, blood and generally go to great lengths to minimise the impact my family and I have on this planet and all that it supports. In fact I enjoy it. There is more to life than plasma screen TV's and home entertainment systems.

This thread has made me put myself in the shoes of people such as yourself and I think I get much less frustration from the entire CC debate. When I see solar panels on roofs I like it, when I go fishing in my canoe on the lake under the Carcoar windfarm I enjoy it, when they put up monitoring towers for a windfarm 5 km from my home I think its a good thing (as do the farmers who could get the turbines). For people such as yourself I imagine these things are just reminders of the great CC swindle. For me, they are reminders that we can, with or without CC, live our lives without digging large holes in the ground and spewing pollutants into the air.

I know that action to mitigate CO2's contribution to CC will happen, and bring it on. I will sleep better at night.

Apologies to everyone else for my fanaticism on this issue, baseless ill-informed arguments against CC can really rub me the wrong way as can the attitude by some that the risk of large impacts on the welfare of millions of people is not a good enough reason to make a small sacrifice in a society where many people have an extremely high quality of life, relative to billions of others on this planet. I will now go back to lurking.

BTW Tony, I downloaded the the data from the Hadley Centre link, pulled it into Excel and plotted it using Systat (couldn't be bothered labelling axes etc.). Looks somewhat different to the data your macro plotted. One of us has made a mistake.

When I fitted trend lines the only way I could get a negative trend was fit an exponential. An exponential relationship is invalid for this data. Is this relevant if we are interested in long term trends? No. Is this relevant if it makes you think about your 'proof' of cooling? Maybe.



In response to your cooling graph, we have had no snowfalls so far this Autumn at home and only a handful of frosts, we still have some tomatoes in May when they are usually all well and truly frosted to death by the start of April. The data is there on BOM. Using your rationale, this has to be sure fire proof that the globe is warming?

R James
25-May-2009
9:08:28 AM
Great to reduce demand, but realistically it's not going to happen. Population is increasing faster than reductions could be made. All these government commitments for reducing power usage are fairyland stuff.

I saw a huge windfarm in Egypt recently - hundreds of turbines. Too bad not one was turning. I did some research, and found that they do get reasonable wind for a lot of the time. Unfortunately it's not all the time. Electricity price would need to increase by 250% for it to become financially attractive, and then it can only be a supplement to the main power supply. http://www.exportinitiative.de/media/article005796/15%20Oman.pdf

In the UK 2007 - 2008 taxpayers coughed up $1 billion dollars subsidy for wind turbines. Solar and wind offer little hope for the level of power needed.

evanbb
25-May-2009
9:22:04 AM
On 25/05/2009 R James wrote:
>I saw a huge windfarm in Egypt recently - hundreds of turbines. Too bad
>not one was turning. I did some research, and found that they do get reasonable
>wind for a lot of the time. Unfortunately it's not all the time. Electricity
>price would need to increase by 250% for it to become financially attractive,
>and then it can only be a supplement to the main power supply. http://www.exportinitiative
>de/media/article005796/15%20Oman.pdf

Oh for Christ's sake R_James, you're out and out lying now. You're a troll and I vote to have your account blocked.
lacto
25-May-2009
10:42:16 AM
whilst not quite your age R JAMES I am nearly there and cant ever recall running into you anywhere whilst climbing exactly who and where did you climb or have you just taken up sport climbing at the ripe age of 60 . The climbing community when you most likely took up the sport was very small if you were a climber .
Wind and solar straight do provide variable power however if you look at the demand curves 8000 Mw of "day time energy would nicely fit into the east coast power grid. Solar can also use storage to carry energy over to non sunlight times. Thermal coal at its absolute best is 33% efficient in converting heat to power and cannot adjust loads quickly .Wind & solar operate about 40 % of the time . The east coast of australia has massive potential to store power in the Snowy scheme . If it is ecomonic to build a link power station between McKay creek amd bogong village, then a new reversible power station betweeen Ecumbene and Jindabyne would be a boomer (the tunnel already rxists ). The whole of the tumut could also have pumps which store huge amounts of power without consuming water. Power is available below $20 nearly every night and sells for more than double later .

evanbb
25-May-2009
10:47:12 AM
On 25/05/2009 lacto wrote:

> Wind and solar straight do provide variable power however...

There are some good energy storage projects under way. Lloyd Energy's high-purity carbon (which, somewhat ironically, is essentially fancy coal) storage system looks the business, with a 3MW plant going in at Lake Cargelligo, and a 10MW plant in Cluncurry.

Here's a podcast with the CEO, which contains some good basic information:
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/lloyd-energy-systems-graphite-block-storage

Here's a link to the Snowy Mountains Engineering COmpany, who are doing the engineering on the Lake Cargelligo project:
http://www.smec.com/Default.aspx?aProjId=105

nmonteith
25-May-2009
11:07:04 AM
I'm really thankful that there is a bunch of clever people out there all working on this. If my electricity bill goes up 300%, i really don't care. At the moment the cost of electricity is tiny compared to what i spend on fuel for my car. Much like car manufacturers are now being forced to make more fuel economical cars, the electrical whitegoods manufacturers will be forced to make cleaner greener machines for our homes. Currently we are extremely wasteful in everything we do - and i predict in 50 years our generation will be known as The Enviro Wasters.

 Page 5 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