Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
The subject of Global Warming seems to have cooled?; Ice storms put the dampers on global warming
Topic Started: 15 Feb 2014, 12:21 AM (8,027 Views)
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


themoops
16 Feb 2014, 11:32 AM
People of my gen were first told about it around the late 80s early 90s, that was when they banned some sort of stuff in spray cans, cfc.





That was the drama with the Ozone layer.

Quote:
 
Freaky weather patterns seem to be getting more common and worse.

We've got Adelaide who's had 13 days of +40c weather, the QLD floods, that shit going on in the UK atm...whatever else.


I remember more freaky cold weather back in the 60's and early 70's. Although summers were typically dry and hot. At the end of the 70's I noticed wetter and cooler summers. I'd say late 2013 and early 2014 have resembled the 70's more with rain into Nov and with a more extensive heat wave in Summer. This is Melbourne.

Quote:
 
I supported the carbon tax and it's one of the left's pet themes, but it's going to be a struggle for them, especially when they openly admit to wanting to fuck white men over, and they never say anything about overpopulation, and given whatever other loony things they do to turn voters off.


A straight carbon tax I wouldn't have minded. But one it wasn't straight and 2 it was to become the ETS which most likely would have been a con job. A straight tax would be okay, one that covered imported goods as well. Then the revenue would go to the Aus government. Goldman Sachs is hot for an ETS.

Presently trying to apply something might be counter productive.

Actually it's the white countries that take the best of the planet.

Quote:
 
But I've stopped caring.


Today we have nimby greenies, while they drive 3 ton Diesels to the supermarket.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
16 Feb 2014, 12:26 PM
Fine. So you believe human capture of rainfall had a measurable impact on recent sea levels, but just not measurable using today's devices, and as evidence you point to measurements taken of a lake. Cool. :tu:
Ok, I'm back now, I was in a bit of a hurry, so I gave you one of the first ones I found...

Quote:
 
Dams Lower Global Sea Level
Andrea Thompson | March 12, 2008 08:00pm ET

Global sea levels would be higher and rising faster, if not for reservoir water trapped behind dams around the world, a new study suggests.

But the conclusion does not fully account for other human-caused changes to the water cycle, another researcher cautions.

Sea level rise caused by global warming has the potential to severely impact coastal and island communities by encroaching on populations there and increasing storm damage.

Most of the sea level rise in recent decades has been attributed to the thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it heats up) and ice melt from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Scientists have known for some time that changes in land water storage, including the amount of water locked behind dams, was an important element in the sea level rise equation, but just how important was uncertain, said study leader Ben Chao of the National Central University in Taiwan.

Chao and his colleagues investigated this question by doing a comprehensive tally of all the world's dams constructed since 1900 (about 29,484) and estimating the amount of water they hold. The data was taken from the International Commission on Large Dams' World Register of Dams.

Chao and his team found that altogether these dams hold about 2,600 cubic miles (10,800 cubic kilometers) of water. This corresponds to a drop in global sea levels of about 1.2 inches (30 millimeters). Meaning ocean levels today would be that much higher if some river water wasn't trapped behind dams and prevented from flowing back into the ocean.

"If you look in just the past half century, the observed sea level rise is about 10 centimeters, and the negative effect of the reservoirs in total has been as much 3 centimeters, so in other words, the sea level could have risen 13 centimeters," Chao told LiveScience.

The study's findings are detailed in the March 14 issue of the journal Science.

Accounting for the drop from dams means that the average sea level rise over the 20th century estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (about 1.7 millimeters per year over the last century) would actually be higher than thought, Chao said.

But other scientists caution against making the leap from the amount of sea level rise to the rate at which it has risen. "That may be one step too far," said Vivien Gornitz of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research, who was not involved with Chao's study.

All of the ways in which humans manipulate water on land must be considered, Gornitz says, from groundwater pumping to the increased runoff from cities covered in concrete, which isn't as permeable as soil.

"You have to consider all of these aspects together," Gornitz said, and some scientists think these effects may cancel each other out in terms of their impact on sea level. This view was noted in the last IPCC report.

http://www.livescience.com/4852-dams-global-sea-level.html
Quote:
 
Sea level changes – Mass Exchange

Exchange of water with other "reservoirs" is an important contribution to sea level change. A significant part of this is through the hydrological cycle, where water evaporates from the ocean, resides in the atmosphere, then returns to the ocean either directly or via reservoirs (snow, ice, lakes, rivers, groundwater etc). There are both annual variations as well as longer-term variations. For example, extraction of water from underground aquifers can increase the mass of the ocean whereas the storage of water in dams can decrease the mass of the ocean.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.html

I honestly thought this was common sense, though this one is a bit crazy...
Quote:
 
Giant Dams Mess With Global Sea Level Rise
JUN 18, 2010 10:30 AM ET // BY MICHAEL REILLY

After building one of the world's largest dams, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, China is getting ready to outdo itself by building a massive structure on the Brahmaputra River that would be the largest hydroelectric project in the world.

If built, it will alter global sea level. But it won't be alone.

Most of the world's biggest dams have been built since 1950, flooding river valleys with giant man-made lakes. The cumulative effect of all this water storage has been to skim about 1.18 inches off the top of Earth's oceans.

But that's far from the whole story. The water behind dams is heavy — it pushes Earth's crust down and gravitationally attracts water from the ocean. The effect is small, averaging just .001 of an inch per year over the last sixty years according to a study in press in Geophysical Research Letters, but it works to counteract the sea level drop caused by storing water behind giant concrete walls.

The net effect of all this is that the oceans are actually rising about 20 percent faster than tide gauges would have us believe. Still, the vast majority of the roughly 3 millimeters (.12 inches) of annual rise is caused by the ocean expanding as it warms.

So if warming seas dwarf the dam effect, why do we care? In short, local effects. As study authors Julia Fiedler and Clinton Conrad of the University of Hawaii write, sea level isn't uniform from one place to another — seas can rise faster in one region or slower in another, depending on a range of factors.

One of those factors is large dams. Coastal communities with a giant reservoir sitting inland may find the effects of sea level rise creeping up on them a little more quickly than they expect.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/dams-alter-global-sea-level.htm
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
themoops
Member Avatar
Ruby Member
Count it's China and the US who are the main culprits.

I'd happily go back to an economy where you didn't have to buy the same piece of shit every short amount of time because the build quality is crap.
Edited by themoops, 16 Feb 2014, 01:56 PM.
stinkbug omosessuale


Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments.
Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck!
See here
Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Kulganis
16 Feb 2014, 12:54 PM
Chao and his colleagues investigated this question by doing a comprehensive tally of all the world's dams constructed since 1900 (about 29,484) and estimating the amount of water they hold. The data was taken from the International Commission on Large Dams' World Register of Dams.

Chao and his team found that altogether these dams hold about 2,600 cubic miles (10,800 cubic kilometers) of water. This corresponds to a drop in global sea levels of about 1.2 inches (30 millimeters).
But that's a different argument.

You were not talking about the total 3cm impact of all dams in the world starting empty and being filled to capacity over 100+ years.

Your original claim was that global sea levels fell to a measurable extent due to 'extra rain' captured by humans over one year.
Edited by Shadow, 16 Feb 2014, 02:01 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up
If climate change sceptics have a coherent explanation for the events we are witnessing, it's time they held an international conference and told us what they believe.


Henry Porter
The Observer, Sunday 16 February 2014


Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66m years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.

If you were as weirdly obsessed by these catastrophes as I am, you would maybe start by citing the worldwide layer of sediment known as K-Pg boundary, which was first discovered near Gubbio, in Italy, and is thought to be the fallout from a massive explosion. You would mention the soot that is associated with this layer, the site of a huge impact in the Yucatán region of Mexico 66m years ago and, finally, you'd ask what else could have caused the dinosaurs to die out more or less overnight. A sceptic might respond that this is all supposition, evidence tenuously linked to fit a very recent theory: none of it constitutes proof and no one can ever know why the dinosaurs vanished to allow the rise of mammals and the eventual evolution of man.

So you would quote more evidence, such as the presence in the K-Pg layer of iridium, an element rare on Earth but not in asteroids, as well as the altered state of quartz, which can only be made under extremely high pressure, such as is caused by a huge impact of a 10km asteroid. You would mention the long darkness when only ferns grew and the fact that the seas were emptied of all but the most tenacious species.

Ah, but this is still all very hypothetical, the sceptic would say, at which point you might give up and tell him, yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75% of the world's species, but you're going with the best available evidence. The sceptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.

This is where we are with the climate change deniers. The absolute proof of manmade global warming is unlikely to arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged with equal time in the argument, where, taking the part of Little Britain's wheelchair user Andy to our Lou, nothing is ever good enough for them.

They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.

Until such a conference is held and people such as Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley – names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic – are required to provide the proof of their case, rather than feeding off that of their opponents, they should be treated with mild disdain. I don't say deniers should be banned from media outlets, as the website Reddit has attempted to do, but just that there should be agreement that they must now qualify, with argument and facts, for the balanced coverage they receive in such places as the BBC.

I believe so passionately in the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference (the NCCCC, perhaps) that the fee for this column is offered to start the ball rolling. And I will be the first to buy a ticket, because the deniers' case has about a tenth of the strength of the warmists' case and I want to see them flounder, as all the scientific guns are trained on them. Of course this will not happen – why would someone such as Lawson exchange the comfortable position of ringside critic for the roll of protagonist? But for him and the rest of the deniers, a failure to put up will soon mean they have to shut up, simply because no one is listening.

With each new freak weather event, they look more and more superfluous to the debate about how we survive the 21st century.

For the moment, however, they have a disproportionate influence because they've created the illusion that this is a finely balanced discussion where a person can reasonably support either side. They empower a certain amount of stupidity, laziness, selfishness and ignorance in the minds of many, and I hope some of the younger deniers, though few, live to acknowledge responsibility.

I mentioned that most deniers come from the right and it is true the uninterrupted business of capitalism, which often entails waste of resources and energy, is a priority, but there is something deeper that explains why there are so few deniers from the left and that is to do with conservative mind. In his 1956 essay "On Being Conservative", the philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote that the man of conservative temperament is "not in love with what is dangerous and difficult; he is unadventurous; he has no impulse to sail uncharted seas. What others plausibly identify as timidity, he recognises in himself as rational prudence. He eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of his world".

This is so perceptive about the conservative instinct and I think it explains the reluctance among many sane people to come to grips with the enormous implications of manmade climate change: the radical actions we must take to avert further rises and how we should adapt our societies and economic systems to cope with extreme weather events associated with even the tiniest temperature rise, which are now agreed by both sides.

To suspend hostilities for a moment, it seems to me that both sides should start by considering the undeniable waste of energy in British cities, where office lights shine through the night and supermarkets pump out hot air at open entrances and cold air in their freezer sections. Energy saving and a huge insulation programme might prevent the construction of more wasteful wind turbines, some of which, in the extreme weather of last week, burst into flames or had to be shut down.

We have to come to some agreement soon or the deniers won't be the only dinosaurs.


Link Here
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
16 Feb 2014, 02:00 PM
But that's a different argument.

You were not talking about the total 3cm impact of all dams in the world starting empty and being filled to capacity over 100+ years.

Your original claim was that global sea levels fell to a measurable extent due to 'extra rain' captured by humans over one year.
My claim?

It was a sentence in a linked quote, from Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

peter fraser
16 Feb 2014, 02:03 PM
yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75% of the world's species, but you're going with the best available evidence. The sceptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.

This is where we are with the climate change deniers
I stopped reading there.

The author equates someone who questions the extent to which man influences the climate, with someone who believes aliens exterminated the dinosaurs.

That tells me the author has no cohesive argument.


Kulganis
16 Feb 2014, 02:06 PM
My claim?

It was a sentence in a linked quote, from Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist.
You posted it, and then you followed it up with your own comment about human capture of the water.

You also said (in relation to the sea level drop that particular year, that 'capture of water by humanity is but one of the reasons that water takes a very long time to reach the oceans...And of course it has a measurable impact'

If you don't agree with the original claim then great. Pity it took so long for you to concede the point.
Edited by Shadow, 16 Feb 2014, 02:16 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
16 Feb 2014, 02:08 PM
I stopped reading there.

The author equates someone who questions the extent to which man influences the climate, with someone who believes aliens exterminated the dinosaurs.

That tells me the author has no cohesive argument.



You posted it, and then you followed it up with your own comment about human capture of the water.

If you don't agree with the original claim then great. Pity it took so long for you to concede the point.th the original claim then great. Pity it took so long for you to concede the point.
So now I have to anticipate what mistakes in comprehension you might make?

BTW, the alien in the story is an extreme example designed to show that the skeptic in the scenario would not accept any evidence.

Yet more failure at comprehension.
Edited by Kulganis, 16 Feb 2014, 02:16 PM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Kulganis
16 Feb 2014, 02:16 PM
So now I have to anticipate what mistakes in comprehension you might make?
You said (in relation to the sea level drop that particular year), that 'capture of water by humanity is but one of the reasons that water takes a very long time to reach the oceans...of course it has a measurable impact'.

In what way did I misunderstand your claim?
Kulganis
16 Feb 2014, 02:16 PM
BTW, the alien in the story is an extreme example designed to show that the skeptic in the scenario would not accept any evidence.
No, it's akin to a god botherer retorting with 'so you think we used to be monkeys' in response to someone who believes in evolution rather than creation. It's a typical alarmist tactic to try and shut down the debate by ridiculing his opponent with a nonsense strawman srgument. Debate is something alarmists are terrified of, hence their efforts to shut it down and their desperate compulsion to dismiss all skeptics as 'vested interests' or 'astroturfers' and the like.
Edited by Shadow, 16 Feb 2014, 02:25 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Kulganis
16 Feb 2014, 02:06 PM
My claim?

It was a sentence in a linked quote, from Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist.
The issue being discussed was the short term ( a year or two) drop in sea level. You responded to that discussion with post #13 in which you clearly suggested a reason for the drop was the capture of water for future use by humans. That could only be a possible explanation if there was a particularly large increase in human capture of water for that period. A steady increase in dam capacity is irrelevant to the issue of that drop in sea level being discussed. It is inconceivable that the short term sea level fall could be associated with human capture which appears to have been growing at a rate equivalent to a sea level fall of much less than one millimetre per year.
You screwed up and Shadow has exposed you.

Note: You posted stuff by Chao in which he interestingly claims that dam storage built since 1900 accounts for the equivalent of a sea level fall of 30millimetres. He then states that the negative effect of the last 50 years (ie since 1964) of the reservoirs in total has been 3centimetres.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy