Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

---

How successfully can we predict the onset of hurricanes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Is the use of my post in highlighting that article to do with the links I had provided and how they do not pass through the peer-review process, or are you suggesting that I do not understand scientific method?

The academic peer-review system is not as well-balanced and as fair as some people may suggest. As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, attempting to publish ideas that contradict your reviewer's work does not go down very well. I know of a few academics who have established their own journals in order to get information out, as other journals would not touch it. Whether that was due to their work being garbage or innovative I don't know, but it has happened.

---

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

---

Ah, my apologies, I took the use of my post as some kind of rebuttal of my points. My mistake :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

---

But 'they' haven't put it down entirely to global warming, if my reading was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes but that's my point. We've not been studying it for long enough to actually draw any reasonable data from it.

---

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

---

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

---

I would generally agree with that. The lack of smog in major Western cities is one indication of how we have cleaned up our act. Aircraft, too, are more fuel-efficient, less smoky and noisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

---

You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

---

Coal can easily be burned without billowing black clouds of smoke using precipitator units prior to the stacks. You can also control the s02 and nox gasses, but you still have the co2 that you're going to have when you burn anything.

This may have been mentioned before, if so, my apologies. This system uses bouys and as they sway they operate pumps to send high pressure water to shore and spin turbines for power. Sounds good.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...671797016.html