Slashdot Mirror
Heat Waves In Australia Are Getting More Frequent, and Hotter
vikingpower writes "In a landmark report on bushfires and climate change (PDF), the Australian Climate Council concludes that heat waves in Australia, as driven by climate change, are becoming more frequent — and that they get hotter. 'It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health services and other authorities prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme fire conditions,' says the Council in the report. Sarah Perkins, one of the report's co-authors,
was interviewed by The Guardian Australia. '"While we can't blame climate change for any one event, we can certainly see its fingerprint. This is another link in the chain." Perkins said her latest work had analyzed heatwave trends up to 2013. She said the trend "just gets worse – it's a bit scary really."' In 2009, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization signaled that a Southeast Australian heatwave was the hottest in 100 years."
Well, hottest in 100 years, means that 100 years ago, it was hotter...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Everyone buy a Nissan Leaf!
Once again, you'll make him unleash his dogs of war as you send your weaklings into the field to to find a rig big enough to haul that fat tank of gas...
No more Men at Work... No Midnight Oil...No wonder Australia is going to hell in a hand basket.
It's not climate change, it's just a random weather pattern.
Oh wait.. you said hot?
Nevermind. Climate change.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
50 C temps in Australia this decade (40 C temps now).
Halfway up the Rockies in Canada (Kootenays) they are having very very low snowfall - only one meter instead of three meters.
Massive 1000 year floods in Calgary are the new normal.
Get ready for climate change, boys and girls, cause it's coming and China's pushing it as hard as possible by increasing coal plants 6x this next year.
Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
given their natural habitat and evolutionary traits, this means its only a matter of time until those ferocious Drop Bears go extinct. the bad news of course is that we can no longer use the drop bear as an excuse for americans to choose New Zealand as their holiday destination.
Granted its also important to note that should americans agree to reduce their carbon footprint and sign the damn kyoto treaty, we wont have to resort to shipping drop bears to safer climates in the states.
Good people go to bed earlier.
stop living in the desert.
I can see the fingerprint of global warming in the sky every day.
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!
Dorothea Mackellar, 1904
Yup; Australia has never been hotter / dryer / ...
It's possible that both the AGW deniers and AGW alarmists are wrong. Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control, the same ones that have caused ice ages and warm periods in the past when carbon outputs were nowhere near as high as they are now. But that theory would cause people to stop paying their taxes and mortgages and move to the tropics, so we can't have that.
get the tinfoil hats on, here come the climate changers!!
I think you'll find the tinfoil hat wearers are those who think that the scientific community are all conspiring to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out. Odd, that. Then the climate-change deniers have no trouble believing the industry-sponsored pseudo-science of the global warming denial industry that actually does have big money behind it from the likes of Exxon of Exxon Valdez fame. Yeah, you have no trouble believing the polluters, do you?
Get a fucking grip. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Out of thousands of peer-reviewed papers you'd be doing well if you can find one single paper that says otherwise.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
An organization that derives its funding from the sense of crisis in their reports finds that the situation is quite alarming.
The report recommends cutting emissions to control the weather. As if their lower carbon air will somehow hover only over Australia to keep temperatures down, while China and the other high polluters in Southeast Asia will hold in the heat. If only Australia can experience man-made global warming despite no global temperature increase in the past 10 years, surely they can cool off via the same mechanism as well!
But don't you worry, it can all be fixed with more spending (taxes), and as long as you don't vote for those other guys.
.
to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out
Climate Change Is the Next $10 Trillion Opportunity
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$.
.
All the HAARP antenna arrays and ionospheric heaters around the world can't be making life better for us idiots on earth. Shut those goddamned stations down and watch the weather return to normal.
Look, the west is working on lowering their emissions.
However, China alone emits over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. Worse, by 2020, they will account for over 1/2 assuming that no other nation lowers theirs (and if other nations lower theirs, then it will probably be around 2017). In addition, the rest of BRICS are busy increasing their emissions.
And with kyoto and other nations trying to tie emissions to individuals, rather than to GDP, this will continue to happen. The only way to stop this is to have ALL NATIONS lower their emissions at the same time. In addition, it needs to be tied to GDP, rather than per capitia. Finally, it needs to be based on empirical data, not SWAGs.
And the only way to make sure that ALL nations work on bringing emissions down is for nations to tax all consumed goods, local and imported, with a tax based on where the good and its parts come from. In addition, ideally, it would include something for the transportation of the item.
Until that point, emissions WILL rise faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out
Climate Change Is the Next $10 Trillion Opportunity
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$. .
The article you have linked shows that there are business opportunities created as a result of dealing with climate change. It does not show how climate scientists benefit from the results of their studies going one way or the other, as is often alleged by climate change deniers.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
That article was not written by a scientist. It was written by an entrepreneur trying to sell green energy. Money works on both sides.
Please supply your (statistically significant) data.
Misdirection. Scientists are not the ones looking to cash in -- they are being used by those who are looking to cash in, which is big business.
Easy. Just look at where Al Gore invests his money. Hopefully I don't have to spell out how to find that information.
Things, whether they are in fact true or false, do not become true just because sufficient percentages of people believe them.
The consensus in Wisconsin might be that the Packers are the best football team, but that doesn't make it fact. It would simply mean that the majority prefer to remain delusional, rather than change their long-held beliefs.
That is not to suggest that ManBearPig is not real, but it takes more "6 out of 10 scientists believe ManBearPig is real and will kill everyone" to convince the rational mind.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
But it's cold in North America during the winter! That means that climate change isn't happening!
WHAT DO YOU MEAN OTHER PLACES HAVE DIFFERENT WEATHER??
Has anyone told Rush Limbaugh that places other than the USA exist yet? Maybe the shock will kill him and he'll stop promulgating all his climate lies.
Great! Maybe we can get the crazy deniers to realise that the economy won't implode if we spend money on something other than oil subsidies.
$10 trillion worth of jobs? Why isn't everyone piling into that bandwagon?
If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.
The grants from government and government-like bodies are in the billions. Oil companies don't spend billions trying to disprove global warming despite what you may think. They can't, it would raise too many alarm bells and draw shareholder ire besides. Last figure I saw was $23 million... a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the money spent trying to prove global warming.
China alone emits over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions.
Agreed, the concept of a nation is irrelevant when it comes to global issues. However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault. This is CONSUMER pollution, mostly driven by CAPITALISM. Fix the two problems in caps and our problem will be resolved, in a few thousand years (when the climate goes back to normal).
The climate is changing precipitously and will continue to accelerate until there is are global level population collapse and/or human extinction, which may eventually solve the issue. There is nothing we will likely be able to do about this due to our social and economic structures and inertia. We can engineer the problem but is just hubris to imagine that engineering will provide a solution.
The consensus in Wisconsin might be that the Packers are the best football team, but that doesn't make it fact. It would simply mean that the majority prefer to remain delusional, rather than change their long-held beliefs.
Your ability to compare peer reviewed scientific papers to loyalty to sports teams is noted.
That is not to suggest that ManBearPig is not real, but it takes more "6 out of 10 scientists believe ManBearPig is real and will kill everyone" to convince the rational mind.
It's a bit more than 6 out of 10. It's more like 13,926 out of 13,950. And it's not about "belief." It's about reaching a conclusion after rigorous research.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Which they want you to take as meaning "While we can't blame catastrophic man-made global warming"...
Gee... I wonder why they used the laughable, catch-all term 'climate change'. I wonder why they stopped using the term 'catastrophic man-made global warming'...
Could it possibly be because, like almost ALL 'scientists' nowadays, they are a bunch of fraudsters, whose jobs depend on coming up with more and more scare stories?
www.climatedepot.com
Climate change is just a change in climate. so if its hitting hotter or colder, its climate change.... Is the council not sure if the temp is changing? Dose the council even know what they are talking about? Or do they mean global warming or man-made global warming? all 3 are different. climate change happens constantly, global warming is a natural cycle. man-made global warming has never been proven yet.
While I don't even consider myself among the "deniers" ... I think you have to be going around with a big, thick blindfold on, if you really believe the "pro climate change" researchers aren't getting some money out of it.
The federal government wants to push climate change as its platform to encourage all sorts of initiatives, and to do so, it needs the backing of numerous scientific studies. Most researchers sustain themselves largely based on government grants. Even NASA has been a big climate change proponent in recent years, vs. focusing on the space travel projects we traditionally associate with it. Why do you think THAT is? All the funding cutbacks in space exploration mean they need to find something else to do that IS funded, or else they vanish.
They are working on it. We are digging up coal, oil and gas at faster rate than any time in history. And thanks opposition to clean, baseload like nuclear, this trend is just going to continue until we either turn Earth to Venus, or we run out of stuff to dig up.
http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/
Coal provides around 30% of global primary energy needs, generates 41% of the world's electricity and is used in the production of 70% of the world's steel.
Total Global Coal Production
* 7831Mt (2012e)
* 7608Mt (2011)
* 4677 (1990)
Almost doubled since end of Cold War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg
Now, everyone say thank you to Greenpeace for fucking up the future for thousands of years with their opposition to nuclear power. Part of the carbon problem is squarely on their shoulders.
> Its still OUR pollution
Exactly. The CONservatives in the USA control and rule over China. They have complete control so they bear complete responsibility for all of the pollution in China since they're the ones that control the government of China which controls the people of China. The type of government China has now is the Randesque style that they pray to their invisible man in the sky to bring to the USA.
They already sell plug-in diesel electric trucks in Canada.
Why are you subsidizing the Middle East?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$.
When the Maldives or New Orleans is underwater, in part because of climate change, people die needlessly. When the heat makes formerly arable land into desert, people starve. When formerly great sources of water dry up, people dehydrate and die.
So it's not all about money. It's partially about money: It's expensive to actually do something significant about climate change, and easier for the people in power to simply let the people without power die than it is to pay for fixing the problem.
I am officially gone from
Interior Australia seems to be suffering a terrible drought while Northern Australia is being inundated.
Australia: Percent of Normal Precipitation
Is not just CO2, there are more greenhouse gases and other affecting factors like i.e. deforestation. Check this map on countries contributing to climate change. The elephant in the room is US, comfortably first with 0.151C, then comes far China with 0.063 and Russia with 0.059.
http://www.viamotors.com/
Built in Utah, bought by Coke, Fed Ex, and UPS among others.
Most of the oil used in the US comes from the US. The second largest source? Canada.
Why are you producing so much oil if it's so bad?
It's their fault that they're choosing to destroy their country to enrich capitalists by selling us trinkets. We don't have guns at their backs. They choose to not have the environmental enforcement that we have here. Watch out, the current nutso crop of Republicans want to do the same here. Rand Paul loves a race to the bottom.
To melt all the damn ice?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
they keep citing that a previous such event of near or equivalent intensity hadn't occurred in 100 years
no really. go look through various news articles: cyclones, hurricanes, heatwaves, flooding
in the last 5 years they keep citing these extreme events haven't been seen in the last 100 years
so exactly what happened in 1900 +/- 10 that is similar to what we're doing in ~2000 +/- 10?
as far as i can tell, absolutely nothing is on the same scale. we've got a significantly higher population, producing significanlty more carbon from fossil fuels, and are ripping down trees like we're giving the earth a buzz cut. yet somehow the climate is apparently behaving the same. you know, it's almost like this kind of thing is cyclical.
i wonder what we'd find if we scan newspaper records from roughly 100 years ago (the last time these extreme events happned)
i can't voucher for the accuracy of newspaper reporting and scientific measurement records from around 200 years ago
but who wants to bet that in 1900 +/- 10, they wouldn't have seen such events since, oh i don't know, 1800 +/- 10
On behalf of Canada, the answer's simple: our government has been hijacked by Bush-era conservatives. (And I do mean "hijacked": see this and this.) A lot of people here are vehemently upset about new petroleum fuel extraction developments.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Really?
In your scenario above, the sea level must suddenly rise several meters all at once. Normal people walk away from water that is rising fractions of a millimeter per year.
In your scenario above, the land has to suddenly turn into desert, and a lot of it all at once, and other formerly non-arable land all has to remain that way. Don't let the fact that the earth was a *greener* place when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were higher make you think any differently, though!
In your scenario above, the water just seems to vanish. Congratulations, you've managed to find out how to destroy matter without converting into energy, instead of assuming that it evaporates and comes back down as rain somewhere else.
It seems that global warming is occurring; however, your non-sensical ideas as to what happens when GW occurs contributes to the confusion and problems people have discussing it.
Hottest in the last 100 years, soooo it was hotter more than 100 years ago, before cars and all had a chance to heat everything up.
Exactly. Tax fuels according to how much carbon they contain, and tax imports according to how much fossil fuels the nations they come from emit. Then the free market will do the rest: develop more energy sources that don't emit carbon dioxide and produce more energy efficient products.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I'm sure that not all of Canada agrees with you. It's a polarizing issue to say the least. Many Canadians also believe people on the left over estimate the environmental impact of Canadian oil production when compared to the environmental impact of oil production in the middle east. How much CO2 does a hellfire missle release wen used in the middle east to help secure stable oil supply? How much CO2 is released simply to transport tankers from the middle east, across the Atlantic to reach the refineries in Quebec? How many people died in the middle east to secure our oil supply. I for one prefer the ethics of oil from Canada. Fewer people needed to die for me to drive to get the fuel I need to drive to work in the morning.
Um, HAARP has been shut down. It may open again. Maybe. Someday.
Nearly $2 Billion conservatively speaking. $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
First, it is supposed to be based on historical data from 1906-2005. It is not based on previous data or on CURRENT data.
IT'S a chart that no one wants to top, but global warming's worst offenders, in absolute terms, are the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK. New calculations suggest that these nations are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the global warming between 1906 and 2005.
Basically, they cherry picked a small period of time. The fact that they stopped at 2005 is even more telling. Since 2005, US's emissions have dropped, while ALL of BRICS have gone way up.
Heck, here is a better map that shows more CURRENT data. It came from CO2. In this case, it shows 2008's. What is truely wicked is that China has been going up 10-15% EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.
Secondly, Europe out did America in coal emissions for centuries. In fact, they emitted more CO2 UNTIL 1998 when suddenly, they started downwards. In fact, even the UK says that they are the global historical cause of climate change.
Third, check out the following 2 reports:
Here and Here.
What do you see?
That the west, esp. USA, is dropping their emissions, but china alone, emits more each year that destroys those savings. IOW, China is increasing faster than what the entire west can cut. This does NOT include other nations.
So, if you really were the least bit honest, you will get off the high horse and realize that we are in this together. Either all nations work together on this, or we all sink. And if USA takes the same approach that EU took, it will actually RAISE emissions, not lower them. It is EU's racism against China that keeps them from moving more work to there. And sadly, American businesses have taken a non-responsibility approach to issues, so they go on over to China, while ignoring the fact that China is cheating on everything.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A lot of people here are vehemently upset about new petroleum fuel extraction developments.
...but not too upset to cash the paychecks and enjoy the economic boom, then?
I agree. In fact, for the last 6 years, America has dropped our emissions to early 1990 levels. OTOH, China has DOUBLED theirs (which is why they are at 33% of all CO2 emissions).
AE can help, but it can NOT replace it all. We need nukes, esp. thorium. It is insane to not have it.
But, I will say that greenpeace and others on the far left are fucking up, by choosing to ignore BRIC and other nations, thinking that they will simply stop their emissions, or that these are cleaner. Nothing could be further from the truth. These nations will continue to increase, and these new plants will exists for more than 60 years. Even if the west stops 100% of our emissions, BRIC nation will continue to grow and this will continue.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
no, it is not. China has one of the WORST emission / $GDP. Over the last 5 years, they have improved and managed to move from the 3rd from the bottom up to 7 from the bottom. Note that America is around the middle so, around 90 from the bottom.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
not fuels. GOODS.
By taxing all goods that we consume, then it puts all nations on an equal footing. And once we start taxing our own products, local companies will push local govs/utilities to change their ways.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As the other AC rightly noted, it's a divisive issue. "A lot" doesn't mean everyone!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault.
I think we'll have to get past this bullshit guilt tripping some day. China isn't going to decrease its pollution because the West buys less of its junk. It'll do so because it is in its interests to do so. You should ask why that isn't the case now.
These are all entirely fair points. I think most of the people who stand against the tar sands tend to be focused on eliminating fossil fuel dependence as much as possible, though, so they would say it's moot. I think.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
There used to be a science based majority on /. but these days anything on climate science brings out mostly libertarian deniers-by-other-means. No there is no scientific debate.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
The parent post is correct, but Greenpeace does not dictate government policy in Australia.
Australia has 31% of the world's uranium reservers (the world's largest) and has in recent years declined production slightly (probably due to Germany's and Japan's 'efforts' that increase greenhouse gas emissions across Europe and Japan). Australia does not use nuclear power for energy generation or for military use or for icebreakers or any use other than ANSTO (small research lab that produces radioisotopes for medical use).
Australia could have gone nuclear ages ago, but didn't. Similarly to how it cut space research and plans to build rocket launch platforms, it is a country of little physics achievements that haven't been done by overseas people. The problem is that is also a county full of coal, and with other countries running out of coal, it might well be the place for coal globally over the next 50 years if policy doesn't change domestically.
Already the highest greehouse gas emitting OECD country in the world in the future if the coal extractions can be seen large from space (like tar pits in Canada) then it might become the biggest contributing country to global warming on a global scale indirectly (due to use of its coal and nonuse of uranium, not to mention thorium).
As a slightly different slant on this troll rousing topic, it is worth noting a few things.
1) Per capita, Australia is the worlds highest emitter of greenhouse gases as we use mostly coal to generate electricity. Furthermore, we are one of the worlds largest coal miners/exporters and so contribute significantly to global CO2 production elsewhere.
2) In September, Australia elected a new government that is predominantly in the hands of climate change deniers. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is on the public record saying that climate change is "crap" (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Amongst the new government's first acts was to defund the Climate Commission (along with several other "green" initiatives of previous governments). They are also committed to repealing the existing Carbon Tax legislation, but cannot (yet) force this through the upper house (Senate) which they do not control.
3) In response to its defunding, the Climate Commission reformed itself as the Climate Council, raising around $1 million in under two weeks. Whilst not big bikkies in US terms, this is extremely significant in a small population country like Australia that demonstrates that many Australians feel very strongly about climate change - strongly enough to not only make a one off donation but to commit to regular, monthly donations to support the ongoing public information work of the Climate Council.
From their "about" page http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about-us/
"The Climate Council is an independent non-profit organisation funded by donations by the public. Our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change."
The article you have linked shows that there are business opportunities created as a result of dealing with climate change. It does not show how climate scientists benefit from the results of their studies going one way or the other, as is often alleged by climate change deniers.
I'll try to keep it simple.
If there were no attention getting headlines due to the imminent and certain disaster that is climate change, there would be no interest/need/funding for studies on the matter and a whole lot of climate scientists would be out of work. Their employment would cease! Who's going ot provide funding for; 'global temperatures cycle up and down by several degrees every few millennia'? Nobody, because it's uninteresting.
The very livelihoods of the climate scientists depend on the drama that they are peddling. Without the drama they would all be applying for positions as TV weather girls. Most fortunately for us those positions are filled only with attractive women. Can you imagine the horror of most of these climate scientist types shaking it for the camera?
Now, tell me how much of that money went into climate scientists pockets rather than paying for expensive instrumentation (launching satellites anyone?), super computer time, data collection and correlation?
You are more of a century too late on that one - such stuff was studied in South Australia by the scientists researching climate there. We teach that in school history since it's something that inspired polar explorers such as Mawson and Wilkins.
Things like that are general knowledge for many people with high school levels of science and history. You are going to have to work on your silly GOTCHA points that are supposed to prove that somebody with nothing but a casual interest knows far more than an entire field of science.
And with kyoto and other nations trying to tie emissions to individuals, rather than to GDP, this will continue to happen. The only way to stop this is to have ALL NATIONS lower their emissions at the same time. In addition, it needs to be tied to GDP, rather than per capitia.
Great, I love it. My country only has about 5 million people so by GDP we should be about to pollute about 60 times as much as the US per capita with its 300 million. I really look forward to the US in total producing about 1/200th (approximate number of states recognized by the UN) of the world's CO2 emissions. Give me gas guzzlers, screw any restrictions on industry and taxes, levies and fees because we're home free baby. Oh wait, did you only want to apply that against bigger countries as China and India? My bad.
I've never understood the moral basis of why it should be measured by GDP and not by capita, what right does an American have to pollute more than me, or anyone else for that matter? And for that matter, I know my carbon footprint is way above the world average but I don't claim to have any moral right to it. I simply have the money to spend on a lifestyle that's more polluting than the people trying to life off a dollar or two a day, the world's not fair and I'm not claiming that it is.
If seven billion people had my lifestyle, the Earth would collapse. I know that, you seem to be in denial about that. That is not to say I try to be an environmental swine, but I like my car. I like going on long distance vacations. I like my large heated (replace with AC if you're down south) apartment, I like my appliances and gizmos and gadgets that all draw power. Trying to cement a situation where the people who polluted first and most get to keep polluting most is probably not very productive. At least I'd say fuck you, first you're the worst of the lot and then you get to reap benefits from it? No wonder China is giving you the finger.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You might want come up with a better term than "sheeple" - it makes you come across like a group-think zombie.
Cold snaps are also caused by climate change? So every type of weather is caused by climate change. Absurd. Climate change is religion, not science.
The question is not one of morals when it comes to GDP vs. sq acres vs capita. It is a question of what CAUSES the CO2. China has had a fairly stable population for the last 20 years. Yet, their emissions has doubled. Why? Because it is tied to their GDP. The same is true of EVERY nation.
The idea of tying CO2 emissions to per capitia explains why idiots like you are causing this nightmare. You scream that it should be per capitia without understanding that emissions are NOT tied to ppl. They are tied manufacturing. Simple as that. Yet, you idiots will block nuke power, scream that the largest emitter of greenhouse is good, and then scream that the nation that has droppped the most over the last 5 years, is total scum.
In the end, if we give over the edge, it will not be due to the idiots in the tea* or neo-cons that scream that climate change is not happening. It will be due to idiots like you that scream that you want it it your way, without any logic behind it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
exactly. Heck, they are now about to convert coal into methane. Interestingly, they have already indicated that they will simply dump the CO2 and other pollutants into the air. The reason why China is doing this is to move their pollution from being by the cities to being in the rural area to the west. So, now, they will rain a LOT more mercury, lead, uranium, etc onto their crops.
With the tax, it would be possible to get every nation to take long-term steps rather than short-term like most of BRICS is doing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What's with all the China-bashing? A nation with 1.35 billion people to feed and clothe has to get it's energy from somewhere. Not to mention all the products they are manufacturing for you in the West.
% of electricity generated from renewable sources
China 17.88% USA 10 .05%
The Chinese government is promoting huge projects for investment in solar, wind and hydro.
I'm not saying they are innocent, but at least they seem to be trying to do something.
No left turn unstoned.
BTW, you really need to google for 'wiki GDP'. You obviously have no clue of what you are talking about.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
lets try again on this.
China is NOT building much in way of renewable. In fact, coal has been 78-80% of their electricity for over 20 years.
In fact, China's plan is to have 80% of their NEW power plants for the next 10 years will run coal. They are stepping up the nat. gas plants, but almost all of that will come from coal=>methane via a very inefficient process.
Now, China is talking about more AE and nukes, but only if they produce them. They do not want them, unless they own the technology.
This is a dangerous approach.
But, it all gets worse. They have scrubbers on these plants, but they do NOT run them. Why? Because it increases the costs of the electricity. So, they will not do so.
One last thing. I have an ex-gf that does air monitoring. Her group went to China and was allowed to monitor anywhere around the nation, except that they could NOT write up about it. Basically, the data was to be turned over to Chinese gov. This was done without any gov. interference. Normally, when environmental scientists come in, Chinese gov. will play with output to control the results. Turns out that things are MUCH worse than is generally known. All of those SWAGS that everybody is doing is based on honesty by govs. China is apparently NOT being honest.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
BTW, the manufacturing of products for the west is a joke. The fact is, that China is doing this not to feed their nation, but as part of a cold war. But the real issue is that China is doing it as cheaply as possible, as quickly as possible, and without a care in the world about the true costs. That is why their nation is only partially capitalist.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
for the next 50 years or so.
It could give Earth 10 to 20 years of reduced warming, enough time for technologies that can really make a difference to come on line at a scale that will have an impact.
This may have been the trigger, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mat4dWpszoQ
To be fair to China they are working on dealing with the problem too. They lead the world in some forms of renewable energy and are building new nuclear plants. Their country is growing rapidly and they see how the west polluted as it did so, and so are unwilling to give up the same opportunity.
It's not as simple as China not caring or not making any effort, it's just that they are only now getting the skills and technology needed to be cleaner. Pollution is a big deal in China and they are making efforts to sort it out, but obviously it is going to take time and economic growth is running at 10% a year.
What we need to do is encourage them as much as possible, and develop new technologies with them in order to help. None of this treating China like the enemy that automatically steals all our tech. Aside from anything else we need to have clean tech become extremely cheap and widely available before Africa really starts to boom.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
when you return desperate immigrants back to their pathetic lives and refuse to take them in or even sink their boats at see or register them at a wild outpost with no food or shelter THEN you deserve this revenge by Nature
Is this a case of "when it gets colder it means its really getting warmer type logic" that the climate alarmists are trying to fool all the people out there - such stupid things to try to fake their way out of their leftist agenda driven hoaxes???
SO no -- too many lies and too many lies to explain that the lies werent lies.after they were caught at it.
It's called "summer."
The fact that China has had 80% of their electricty come from coal for the last 20 years AND that they plan to continue that trend, says that they are doing little to NOTHING.
In fact, the majority of money that has been spent on solar and wind has been about stealing the manufacturing from the west and gutting them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Indeed, it wasn't until the Soviet Union fell that Russian solar facilities were demolished and replaced with coal burning.
I believe that murder is good, the more people we murder the better we are, and people like being murdered. so what if all the research shows that people being murdered dont like it, and that it has a negative effect on society. they are all wrong. I must therefore assume that all those "anti-murder" people are making money off their wacky position. while i, as a bastion of truth, get no financial gain.
sincerely, smith and wesson inc.
You hear this argument every friggin' time there's a "hottest since..." record set. The best variation is, "Records are always being set. One record doesn't mean a thing." My response? When was the last time you heard of a record being set, anywhere in the world, for the coldest year of average temperatures on record. Another way to say the same thing: record highs and record lows, sure, still occur all the time. But consider the first derivative -- how has the ratio between the two changed? There's your trend.
It's not global warming, at least not caused by our burning BILLIONS of tones of fossil fuels.
Simply, it's all God's fault for being such a homophobic sociopathetic but supreme being
A UKIP councillor has blamed the recent storms and heavy floods across Britain on the Government's decision to legalise gay marriage.
David Silvester said the Prime Minister had acted "arrogantly against the Gospel".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Yes, with a few $trillion more research dollars we can develop a perfect battery, cold fusion, cure AIDS and the common cold. Dream on. Even a WW2 total war, everyone sacrifices, kill everyone who opposes approach will not work. But you're itching to try, right? The only thing that will come close to working is the kill (almost) everyone part.
It's a bit more than 6 out of 10. It's more like 13,926 out of 13,950
This reminds me of Dumb and Dumber.
"So you're saying there's a chance!"
Misdirection. Scientists are not the ones looking to cash in -- they are being used by those who are looking to cash in, which is big business.
So the scientists aren't pulling a con on us.
So they're right to tell us that CO2 warms the earth, and that warming makes the earth less hospitable to humanity.
Even if they are being used by malign interests, so fucking what?
If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
First off, grant money from mainstream science organizations isn't handed with no questions asked. It's spent on gear (climate scientists neeed computers), and on tuition for the grad students.
But, if you're willing to lie about climate change, the deniers will pay you literally $5K an hour to go to a podium and deny. (Heartland Institute;s going rate)
First off, grant money from mainstream science organizations isn't handed with no questions asked. It's spent on gear (climate scientists neeed computers), and on tuition for the grad students.
Yes of course that's true. But wait, what do you think the research funded by industry is like? The scientists buy diamond rings and go cruising on a private luxury yacht? No, researchers funded by industry spend their money on exactly the same things that researchers funded by government do.
I wasn't saying the climate change researchers are out to make obscene millions of dollars for themselves. However the fact is that they need grant money flowing in or they do not exist as researchers. It's either get grants and have a nice position at the university and pay your interns and staff and buy nice equipment, or... go teach high school. And the biggest source of grant money is gov't by far, not oil industry.
Throw some more shrimp on the barbie mate!!!
-z
Well you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. The growth in China is fed by Western manufacturing demands. They're not innovators, theyre a lowest bidder manufacturer. Take away their economy by onshoring or giving the work to other nations who will do it while adhering to environmental standards. Whenwe buy from WalMart we are only adding to the problem. Not enough value placed on the environment thats translates into costs of goods, i.e. something manufactured in China should be double the cost due to their poor environmental practices.
That is why I suggest that we tax ALL GOODS that we consume.
First off, it forces all nations to participate. This is key. The idea of treating all nations differently, is allowing businesses to control the situation.
Secondly, it needs to be based on REAL data, not fake data. As such, it should be done by sats looking downward and tracking CO2 (and any other GHG possible) that flows into a nation, as well as out.
Third, it should be based on emissions / $ of GDP. Note that it must be real $ of GDP, not $ of GDP (PPP). The later is a calculation that will allow a nation like CHina or India to devalue their money, and make things appear better. So, by making it real $ of GDP, then if they increase the value of their money, it will allow more pollution, but hurt them on the costs of the good.
Fourth, the tax needs to start low and continue upwards over a period of time. Most importantly, it must be known that it will increase.
Fifth, there should be a costs for distance. After all, there is a real pollution costs on this.
Finally, it needs to be not just to the good, but to the parts as well (which makes this harder).
We need to give societies time to do the right things, but to make sure that ALL of their long range planning is the right way. The issue is not who did the pollution over time. The issue is who is doing the pollution NOW. In the past, nobody knew. Now, we all know. Heck, one of the issue with Kyoto was that we wanted the west to be back to mid 90's level. America did not join kyoto, yet, we are now at early 90's levels and dropping. BUT, this will not matter while nations like CHina double. And obviously, watching Germany and Japan walk away from nuke power plants is going to make things harder. And the logic that other nations should be allowed to pollute when they KNOW the situation is the wrong answer.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
" But wait, what do you think the research funded by industry is like? The scientists buy diamond rings and go cruising on a private luxury yacht? "
Research grants from the private sector do tend to be looser, but in the context of climate change, deniers are not getting grants to do research.
They're getting paid to write propaganda. And that comes with no strings attached, at all.
China's emissions growth is slowing, as it has implemented its own carbon trading scheme and started cleaning up the worst-polluting of its power plants.
Additionally, China has planted over 500,000 square km of trees in the north, as a desertification barrier and carbon sink. This is the largest artificial forest in the world (twice the size of Britain), and they plan to continue increasing this through to 2050.
Little known fact: It is a legal requirement for all Chinese over the age of eleven to plant at least three trees a year.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
You're asking for someone to tell you how climate science works. Why don't you just copy and paste your question into google? Stop being ignorant and go do some reading. I'm not saying I even understand it fully, but I know it's not as simple as you put it. If I had mod points, I'd mod your post troll because it honestly sounds like you're baiting for a response just like this one.
We could all stand to learn more about the science and not have our own terribly uneducated opinions. Peer reviewed journals are a great place for some reading. The math will probably be over your head, but if you read the papers, you can usually get a grasp on the basics of what they're doing. My personal field of interest is astronomy, so I don't know how the climate papers read, but I'm sure they are at least as legible as astronomical texts.
Some of them require that you have a subscription, but most of the local libraries and some community colleges will have public access to libraries of journals and even sometimes a web portal to those services.