Yes - aus.environment.conservation series - expected to get flamed but
nothing happened. Seems the usual suspects have all gone somewhere else.
I stayed away from aus.politics ...
Probably my ineptitude with XNews
Thanks WW - think I'll keep that. I've never claimed to be an "expert"
but on the basis of some of these characters, why not? I have some status
in the field of climate-responsive design, and I've done a fair amount of
modelling, so that's two areas out of the hundred or so scientific and
technical disciplines that have a bearing on climate change. I know that
the GCMs (global climate models) are dodgy, not only because they have
failed to produce results consistent with observations over the last 10
years or so, but also because I can see all the same signs of error in my
own modelling work; two exercises that match subsequent observations so
are (maybe/probably) ok, another four that turned out to be junk.
Seems the only way a model is going to produce results accurately is
if reality, itself, is plugged into them.
But we don't need a model to figure that burning roughly half (and
more) of the oil that was ever produced is going to have some effect
on our thin film of an atmosphere do we?
Has to have some effect, but on the other hand, it's putting the carbon
back where it came from in the first place. If we have already used half
of the known reserves, and the amount released only accounts for 4.5% of
atmospheric co2, I reckon a worse problem occurs when it runs out, and we
don't have an alternative.
Perhaps, but it's not just carbon is it? I hear the Russian permafrost
has begun to melt and release methane-- apparently much more potent.
But at the same time, the poles were ostensibly much warmer than they
are today-- perhaps even at tropical levels.
This is something that I might like to look into... Perhaps there may
be differences between how the planet does it over time and how we do
it suddenly, by geological time-scale terms. IOW, if I push you fast
and hard enough, you will topple over, but if I push you with the same
force, but over a longer time period, you likely won't-- that kind of
idea. So, perhaps-- and what the climatologists are saying-- is that
the Earth will likely reach equilibrium, but not before some serious/
chaotic climatic adjustments.
What do you think?
Peak oil? Funny, but I look forward to the down-slope, but perhaps
like my suggestion above, it may come with some serious/chaotic (i.e.,
May be conflicting evidence on the permafrost issue; would be accompanied
by the movement north of the tree line, but that's not happening.
Trouble is, there really isn't one climate: changes at the poles are a
mixture of loss and accretion, long cycles, but no evidence of aggregate
loss of ice.
Trouble is, these "chaotic climatic adjustments" are only "predicted"
because they are built into all the current crop of climate models. The
models are junk not only because they have got the trends from 1998
completely wrong; they all include positive feedback, eg a marginal
increase in co2 causes an increase in water vapour and other effects that
multiply any man-made co2 effect. This is more junk. Positive feedback is
extremely rare in nature. If it was a feature of climate, then the marginal
amount of man-made co2 would be the least of our worries.
What gets me is that all this AGW stuff is diverting resources away from
doing useful things like protecting communities from natural disasters that
will continue to occur, making sure buildings and communication systems are
Went to a BSA (Building Services Authority) workshop yesterday. Locally
there has been a big increase in masonry defects. This year has seen a
coincidence of the La Nina to the west and the Indian Ocean Dipole effect
to the east. Natural occurrence, happens every 30 years or so. Long period
of heavy rain, protracted monsoon, cyclones, in many areas acting on
expansive clays. But the defects are not the fault of the weather, they are
caused by defective work, failure to place starter bars in slabs,
inadequate ties etc. The BSA Northern Division has 3 full-time and 1 part
time inspectors. The area they have to cover is about 240,000 km2.
$US 3 billion per annum spent on AGW research. All apparently wasted.
If carbon trading grows into a global commodity market, it could reach $US
33 trillion. Carbon trading is about trading "credits" (bits of paper), not
developing alternative forms of energy. It's a Cargo Cult.
I'll repost this:
"Lastly, Gandhi developed the concept of nonviolent revolution, to be
seen not as a programme for the seizure of power, but as a programme
for transforming relationships. The concept sits neatly with the
observation of... Gustav Landauer (1870-1919): 'The state is a
condition, a certain relationship between beings, a mode of behaviour;
we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving
~ Geoffrey Ostergaard
We destroy it by behaving differently.
Bitcoin... barter... local economics... etc.. and/or whatever works.
Whatever strangles your monster. For example, you can't pay taxes if
you're "not working".
Perhaps it's the *speed* at which it is being "replenished".
Apparently, we are going to get a delayed effect as things-- the
climate dynamic-- catches up. Meanwhile, that which can't adjust fast
enough will be in trouble-- species extinctions and all that.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.