Thread: Carbon Pollution? A Summary

Originally Posted by Hymie

Imagine there's an electrical problem.
1 group of Auto Elecs say the Alternators overcharging, another group say theres a dead short somewhere and a third group say it's cosmic rays from the planet Zorg causing the problem. Rudd wants to ban electricity and tax fuses

Every group will have its followers.

Yeah, but the premise of the initial post was concerned with the size of one part of the equation, and extrapolating that because it is small, it can't have a significant effect - it was not a commentary on the solution to the problem.

Fair call.

The thing I find interesting is how strongly the case is put and how with a religon type ferver the people who have the oposing idea are silenced ( by the government like the csiro scientist) or dismissed by the media as confused people.
I wonder me Kev will fine us for talking bad about him like football people do when they say anything against the reff.
We could get our guns out like they do in the middle east but crap they already took them

Whilst the original post is an amusing analogy, I agree with others that despite our contribution being so small, that doesn't make it any less significant or worrying. If every nation thought of it like that and did nothing, it does end up being a significant proportion. I think despite being a small part of a perceived huge problem, we can still at least do our best and make even a small difference, if one can be made.

My 2c on the whole overall issue is that I am very glad the emissions trading scheme was voted down.

Although, apparently that makes me a luddite, climate change sceptic, irresponsible person blah blah blah. The thing is I DO believe climate change is occurring. I am unconvinced that humans are playing a significant role, but just because I am unconvinced doesn't mean I think we should sit around and do nothing, in fact I think we should all take the opportunity to do something while we can, who cares if its a big a problem as politicians keep saying it is, or in fact is over-inflated loads of crap? We should still look at our practices and see where we can improve. I just don't think an ETS is really a good idea.

How about incentives for companies? Funds for research into better technologies? I would be happy to pay a bit more for electricity if I felt the extra money was being used for a better environment or better sustainable practices. I don't support extra money being used for a company with inefficient resource management to buy themselves credits at whatever the cost, with no real incentive for them to change their practices - lets face it, they'll just pass on their increased costs to the consumer and that would be that to them!

Seano.

Climate change may well be happening but whether it's a heating up before a cooling down, no one knows yet.
Our tiny contribution of Co2 has I believe little to do with it but the chopping down of vast forests in South America and Asia and other places certainly has an effect on changing weather patterns.
No doubt the Earth wobbling on it's axis as it's always done as shown by evidence from ice cores, is much more likely to be the real cause.
Less pollution by all of us and business should be a top priority and recycling whenever possible.
Lets have a fair go for all sides to the story, not just the onesided warming theory put forward by government scientists with a vested interest in keeping their funding going.
Or the pollies and their bootlicking entourages, the grub and grog industry that supplies their gab fests, the conference centres, hotels. airlines etc. all have an interest in keeping it going especially as the only thing they will agree on is where to have their next jolly.
And anything pollies like KRUDD are enthusiastic about, I'm deeply suspicious of.
Alan.

According to a study published at Home, (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

Originally Posted by Xtreme

...The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural. ...

While the statement that close to 97% of CO2 is produced by "mother nature" may be correct, it is misleading to think that humans are not responsible for any of the "natural" sources.

The concentration of athmospheric CO2 depends on the earths ability to absorb it as well as its rate of production. Deforestation over the last 50 or so years has resulted in decreased rate of absorption of athmospheric CO2, while an increase in the human population and that of domestic animals farmed for our consumption has increased its production. So although "produced by nature" humans are responsile for both an increase in production and a decrease in absorption thereby shifting the equilibrium.

Originally Posted by seano87

...I am unconvinced that humans are playing a significant role...Seano.

Based on the above, I'm not convinced that the burning of fossil fuels is playing a significant role, but I'm pretty certain that humans are.

I don't know enough about the proposed ETS to have an informed opinion, but setting up a system whereby producers are taxed (in some way or another) with the proceeds going to CO2 reduction strategies (whether R&D, cleaner energy production, tree planting, conservation of existing forrests or other means) does seem like a good idea. Ultimately, we as the end users will be paying for any cost increases, but the price of products will reflect a cost to the environment as well. This will make "green" products / choices more competitive, as their producers don't have to pay for carbon offsets.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

According to a study published at Home, (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

Thanks John, interesting read.

Here's the direct link to the report -
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf