Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
3188 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1230

Subscriber

  Reply # 2107880 15-Oct-2018 01:38
Send private message quote this post

If uncontrolled global warming is actually going to happen. Why isn't everyone rushing to buy land in the far northern parts of Alaska, Canada, Russia etc? As that land would be almost worthless at the moment due to it being too cold in those places.

But it should turn into ideal farmland in a warmer world. And with GW making most other farmland too hot. Your land would then become very valuable. If big business is ignoring GW, the above should deliver you guaranteed riches.

Of course the above sounds like one of those "too good to be true" situations. Yet if GW is definitely going to happen, Then the above scheme would be a Shure bet.





2503 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1221

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2107896 15-Oct-2018 07:05
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood: If uncontrolled global warming is actually going to happen. Why isn't everyone rushing to buy land in the far northern parts of Alaska, Canada, Russia etc?

 

It's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

 

However, we are seeing this to some extent already -- 20 years ago, Southland and the McKenzie country was considered to be too cold for dairying.

 

 


13369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6286

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2107912 15-Oct-2018 08:16
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood: If uncontrolled global warming is actually going to happen. Why isn't everyone rushing to buy land in the far northern parts of Alaska, Canada, Russia etc? As that land would be almost worthless at the moment due to it being too cold in those places.

But it should turn into ideal farmland in a warmer world. And with GW making most other farmland too hot. Your land would then become very valuable. If big business is ignoring GW, the above should deliver you guaranteed riches.

Of course the above sounds like one of those "too good to be true" situations. Yet if GW is definitely going to happen, Then the above scheme would be a Shure bet.

 

It wont work like that, climate change will result it unpredictable weather with increasing extremes and severity. The climate changes will not result in areas changing changing from cold to warm or vice versa.Weather and climate patterns will be haphazrd and will render agricuture in most areas extremely difficult if not impossible. Food production will be a nightmare and famine the norm. We are not going to see a comfortable warm Canada or a Mediterrainean like paradise in New Zeraland.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19154 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2490

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2107913 15-Oct-2018 08:19
Send private message quote this post

Disclaimer: me no climate scientist. Only read about them.

 

There is no doubt that climate is getting warmer, i think that can be seen easily, it is not hidden behind weird math and twisted models. It's a number, a temperature measurement, it is up and up. (Unless you are saying that people are making up the temperatures.)

 

Don't get this point wrong. 

 

The question is, what is the cause, is it caused by CO2 or other, and is that cause(s) reversible. That should be the debate, rather than name calling stuff like climate change deniers etc.

 

My question is, has anyone plotted the graph of temperature and compared it against world population. 





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


Mad Scientist
19154 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2490

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2107916 15-Oct-2018 08:22
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood: No surprises that people are not making much effort, when the government keeps giving mixed messages to do with climate change.

Complaining that fuel prices are too expensive. Even though high fuel prices will encourage lower fuel usage.

The PM flying to the other side of the world, just to make an announcement and talk to people. Ironically about helping the environment. Instead of appearing by video link and avoiding the carbon emissions from the plane trip.

Banning oil exploration, when that doesn't help reduce carbon emissions. Kills an income source that could have provided funding for reducing carbon emissions.

The above linked report says that tourism has a big environmental impact. Yet the government says that tourism can replace the jobs that will be lost due to the oil drilling ban.

That there are laws, which have the outcome that it is illegal to modify a car so it will use less fuel than what it would otherwise use.

Laws pertaining to electricity retail, which mean that for lots of people. Fossil fuel based heating and hot water are cheaper than 80% renewable electric heat and hot water.

Councils that charge consent fees just so you can insulate your house. And councils that leave land that is close to the city, zoned as rural. And only rezone further away land to urban. So the residents of that land have to drive further to get to work. Much more money has to be spent on roading upgrades. And far harder to provide proper public transport to those areas.

Could the Mods please move this thread to the Politics forum.

 

What contribution does methane from our cows and sheep give?

 

Why does no one talk about HFC refrigerant, I thought that was a pretty significant effect as well.

 

My opinion, as stated in earlier post, I don't think it's reversible given the global population growth of humans (and whatever it is that they are/need to be doing to live their lives). I'm not saying don't buy electric cars, I'm saying is it possible that the actual, the root cause is not identified as there is no political or scientific solution to it!





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2107931 15-Oct-2018 09:01
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Batman:

 

What contribution does methane from our cows and sheep give?

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, sheep are far less of an issue than cows in terms of methane production.

 

 

 

 

Why does no one talk about HFC refrigerant, I thought that was a pretty significant effect as well.

 

 

 

 

I guess because it's stored in tanks and compressor loops rather than blown into the air. You may be confused with CFCs, which were not only used as refrigerants, but also as aerosol propellants.

 

 

 

 

My opinion, as stated in earlier post, I don't think it's reversible

 

 

 

 

On a related note, the Montreal Protocol banning the use of CFCs in order to save the ozone layer has caused it to begin to recover, which goes to show that actually we can reverse our environmental impacts if we want to.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


13369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6286

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2107934 15-Oct-2018 09:04
Send private message quote this post

Batman:

 

Aredwood: No surprises that people are not making much effort, when the government keeps giving mixed messages to do with climate change.

Complaining that fuel prices are too expensive. Even though high fuel prices will encourage lower fuel usage.

The PM flying to the other side of the world, just to make an announcement and talk to people. Ironically about helping the environment. Instead of appearing by video link and avoiding the carbon emissions from the plane trip.

Banning oil exploration, when that doesn't help reduce carbon emissions. Kills an income source that could have provided funding for reducing carbon emissions.

The above linked report says that tourism has a big environmental impact. Yet the government says that tourism can replace the jobs that will be lost due to the oil drilling ban.

That there are laws, which have the outcome that it is illegal to modify a car so it will use less fuel than what it would otherwise use.

Laws pertaining to electricity retail, which mean that for lots of people. Fossil fuel based heating and hot water are cheaper than 80% renewable electric heat and hot water.

Councils that charge consent fees just so you can insulate your house. And councils that leave land that is close to the city, zoned as rural. And only rezone further away land to urban. So the residents of that land have to drive further to get to work. Much more money has to be spent on roading upgrades. And far harder to provide proper public transport to those areas.

Could the Mods please move this thread to the Politics forum.

 

What contribution does methane from our cows and sheep give?

 

Why does no one talk about HFC refrigerant, I thought that was a pretty significant effect as well.

 

My opinion, as stated in earlier post, I don't think it's reversible given the global population growth of humans (and whatever it is that they are/need to be doing to live their lives). I'm not saying don't buy electric cars, I'm saying is it possible that the actual, the root cause is not identified as there is no political or scientific solution to it!

 

 

Sheep are our biggest contributor of methane even though individually a cow can produce more methane than a sheep, but all ruminant feeders produce methane. However on a global scale wetlands such as rice paddies and marsh lands produce the highest levels of global methane emmissions. Not to mention the potential methane held in the frozen marshlands of the Tundra.  Methane is a hard one to deal with however concentrating on man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases will reap "easier" benefits. If climate change releases the methane held in the Tundra we are in deep trouble





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 




Glurp
8496 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3896

Subscriber

  Reply # 2108146 15-Oct-2018 13:00
Send private message quote this post




I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2503 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1221

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2108165 15-Oct-2018 13:24
Send private message quote this post

Batman:

 

It's a number, a temperature measurement, it is up and up. (Unless you are saying that people are making up the temperatures.)

 

 

Actually, some climate-change deniers are saying essentially that. If that is to be believed, the numbers are fudged and dodgy.

 

You might think that it's as simple as taking a series of temperature readings at various places around the world, then averaging them. But establishing a trend for the entire world is difficult.

 

1. Historical temperature readings in some parts of the world are very sparse, with records coinciding more or less with European colonization. So, at most, we have less than 300 years of actual recorded temperatures. In some places there's likely less than 50 years worth of data. 50% global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the Southern Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.

 

2. A temperature series from one place isn't necessarily accurate for measuring *climate*; typically weather stations are sited near a town or city, and then the city grows, surrounds the measurement site, and the city increases the local termperature. So you have to adjust the historical temperature readings to compensate for the effects of the city.

 

3. And of course there's human error, not only in taking the temperature reading and recording it, but then transcribing those old paper records onto the computer.

 

Extrapolating from an incomplete, short, and inaccurate dataset was always going to be controversial.

 

 


4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2108196 15-Oct-2018 13:56
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

Extrapolating from an incomplete, short, and inaccurate dataset was always going to be controversial.

 

 

 

 

That depends what you mean by 'controversial'. 97% of climate scientists believe it's real and we are responsible, which makes it 3% controversial.

 

I look at it this way: if I went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said 'You have cancer and you will be dead next week if you don't have surgery tomorrow', but 3 of them said 'You have the flu: go and have a lie down' then I think I'd get the surgery. Because in the worst case, I'd wake up 2 hours later and they'd tell me, 'Turns out you had the flu, everything's fine.'

 

The climate is the same. If we stop using fossil fuels and it turns out climate change isn't real, then still have the following benefits:

 

  • Particulates and NOx pollution, which cannot be denied by anyone who likes to breathe, will be gone
  • Disasters like the Exxon Valdez the Deepwater Horizon, or the Rena will be a thing of the past
  • We won't be dependent on a finite resource which is going to run out eventually whether we like it or not
  • We won't be supporting the most violent and abusive regimes in the most politically unstable regions of the planet

But, again, amongst people who devote their entire careers to studying this stuff, it is not controversial. It's only controversial if you refuse to want to change.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


2503 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1221

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2108237 15-Oct-2018 14:56
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:

 

frankv:

 

Extrapolating from an incomplete, short, and inaccurate dataset was always going to be controversial.

 

 

That depends what you mean by 'controversial'. 97% of climate scientists believe it's real and we are responsible, which makes it 3% controversial.

 

I look at it this way: if I went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said 'You have cancer and you will be dead next week if you don't have surgery tomorrow', but 3 of them said 'You have the flu: go and have a lie down' then I think I'd get the surgery. Because in the worst case, I'd wake up 2 hours later and they'd tell me, 'Turns out you had the flu, everything's fine.'

 

The climate is the same. If we stop using fossil fuels and it turns out climate change isn't real, then still have the following benefits:

 

  • Particulates and NOx pollution, which cannot be denied by anyone who likes to breathe, will be gone
  • Disasters like the Exxon Valdez the Deepwater Horizon, or the Rena will be a thing of the past
  • We won't be dependent on a finite resource which is going to run out eventually whether we like it or not
  • We won't be supporting the most violent and abusive regimes in the most politically unstable regions of the planet

But, again, amongst people who devote their entire careers to studying this stuff, it is not controversial. It's only controversial if you refuse to want to change.

 

 

Right. You're preaching to the converted. I personally believe that climate change is happening, and that it's anthropogenic.

 

But, playing devil's advocate (and continuing your analogy), surgery has a cost and a risk. It would be a shame if (a) you paid out your life savings for the surgery and it was actually just the flu, or (b) you died as a result of the operation. And, back when I was a lad, acupuncture was poo-poohed as Oriental mumbo-jumbo by 97% of doctors. And I expect that disasters will continue to happen, just differently. Assuming ships are electric-powered, instead of the Rena disaster we would potentially have a ship on a reef, with an unextinguishable fire as its lithium batteries burn, polluting the seas with toxic alkaline solution that can't be skimmed of the top. No Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon though. :) It may be politically and economically and even environmentally more sensible to phase out the fossil fuel use over a period of time whilst a complete solar-based solution is installed.

 

 


gzt

10269 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2108241 15-Oct-2018 15:06
Send private message quote this post

Apparently the IPCC report does not include things like tipping point acceleration from things like thawing of permafrost. Is this hard to quantify at present and not yet sufficiently studied for inclusion in this kind of publication?

3556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2108261 15-Oct-2018 15:31
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:

frankv:


Extrapolating from an incomplete, short, and inaccurate dataset was always going to be controversial.



 


That depends what you mean by 'controversial'. 97% of climate scientists believe it's real and we are responsible, which makes it 3% controversial.




Gotta love the old 97% statistic that is still rolled out despite being debunked years ago. Jumped on by politicians, particularly ones like Obama, Kerry, and co and used to mean whatever they want it to mean. So much so that it is now accepted as fact.
It uses explicit endorsement without quantification in drawing together disparate reports from a limited number of climate scientists. So any one of those reports that has any level of AGW, even if it is only considered to be a 1% contributor to overall warning, is considered (in the report) to be a 100% endorsement that manmade climate change is 'real'.
So to use your medical analogy, if 97% of skin specialists said that freckles cause skin cancer, but they also reported that the was only a 1% chance of that occurring, the headline would be "Freckles cause skin cancer", and the surgeon would say "Oh dear, you have freckles, so that leg better come off".

Edit: Just so we are clear here. Various gases do cause a greenhouse effect. I believe that has been scientifically established. Quantifying how much of it is anthropologic is the hard part. And before the graphs start appearing, correlation does not prove causation (Mann Hockey Stick).




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

218 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 35

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2108622 16-Oct-2018 08:39
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Ah, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

References​

 

     

  1.  

    J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

    W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

    P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

    N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

     





:)


3556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109424 17-Oct-2018 10:23
Send private message quote this post

kotuku4:

Ah, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?





If you are referring to my post above yours with your selective cut and paste from the NASA website, then please point out which part of it is a 'story'.
A group of published climate scientists, not all climate scientists. Any paper that attributes a change in the climate to AGW. One of the studies even surveyed only scientists who had made public statements on AGW.

Everything every human being does alters the environment around them.

I put the blame for the obfuscation at the feet of the politicians and media, because detail doesn't matter to them. The former to fit their agenda, the latter to sell advertising.


Edit: and the thing that annoys me most is when people that have genuine doubts and questions are labelled with the term 'denier', with all its religious and holocaust connotations. I have a former school friend who is an Atmospheric Scientist (prefers that title) that is very gaurded about this topic, partly I believe, because he doesn't want to say the wrong thing (personal opinion).




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.