Global Warming

djpbarry · 01-04-2009 02:02PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, apparantly, the universe exists.

My point is that these so-called facts about the middle ages have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The accuracy of these historical claims is often questionable. But even if this particular claim is accurate, English wine production is thriving at present and the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the middle ages. So does this suggest that it is warmer now than it was then?

Flamed Diving · 01-04-2009 02:45PM

djpbarry wrote: »

My point is that these so-called facts about the middle ages have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The accuracy of these historical claims is often questionable. But even if this particular claim is accurate, English wine production is thriving at present and the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the middle ages. So does this suggest that it is warmer now than it was then?

I dunno. You should ask Winey McWinerson.

bonkey · 01-04-2009 07:20PM

djpbarry wrote: »

My point is that these so-called facts about the middle ages have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The accuracy of these historical claims is often questionable. But even if this particular claim is accurate, English wine production is thriving at present and the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the middle ages. So does this suggest that it is warmer now than it was then?

In fairness to MC, there is little doubt that wine was produced in England and Wales during the Medieval period.

I'm not aware, however, that it has been firmly established that wine was produced in Northern England.

Furthermore, its worth noting that the only identifiable period where vineyards were not in England is from the end of the first World War to the end of the Second.

Today, vine in England is commercially cultivated as far north as Yorkshire...far further north, for example, then anywhere identified in the Domesday book.

djpbarry · 01-04-2009 10:03PM

bonkey wrote: »

In fairness to MC, there is little doubt that wine was produced in England and Wales during the Medieval period.

Oh I don't seriously doubt that, but as you say, the extent of vine cultivation is questionable.

But anyway, it's somewhat irrelevant, because it tells us nothing about global phenomenon at the time. It shouldn't even be considered a reliable indicator of local climactic conditions.

Mahatma coat · 02-04-2009 07:50AM

bonkey wrote: »

In post 273 you asked a series of questions which seem more or less to be "is what this documentary said true". They may not have been inspired by the documentary, but they certainly seem to have the same basis.

well yeah, kinda, they were inspired by bits from several docco's

You clarified (post 283) that you believed you knew the answers, which were what you formed your opinion on, and just wanted to double-check.

I answered those questions in post 288.

yep pretty much, and thanks for your answers they clarified most of the points

Now, you seem to be saying you don't understand why people say there's a crisis.

No, I get that people are saying theres a crisis, I just dont subscribe to the AGW argument, things change, things have always changed, I dont understand how people are convinced that this time its our fault.

Is this again a case that you believe you do know why people say there's a crisis, but are asking again for confirmation? If so, may I suggest that you instead explain what you think the argument for a crisis is. That way, anything you are correct on need not be re-addressed, and people can instead focus on where your misunderstanding is incorrect.

we need an OMFG my heads gonna explode tryin to understand that sentence smiley

:D

Or are you saying that you genuinely don't know why....that as far as you can determine, there is no basis whatsoever to argue that the current events are in any way different to historical events?

yeah, thats kinda it, I think, I'd be fair sure that if you lived on the Indis plains 5000 years ago then your whole world was in crisis when the rivers diverted, you might have even viewed it as the greatest catastrophe that ever befell mankind and doomesay was just around the corner, but as we can see the world didnt stop and most of their panic was unfounded. so yeah I see no diference between whats happenin now and whats happened repeatedly throughout history, with the exception that now we can observe the phenomonen on a larger scale, Climate change isnt new, our ability to view the planet as a single entity is, thats whats driving the panic, that and some shaddowy vested interest groups that are best left for discussion in another forum (Lizzzzzzzzzards)

djpbarry · 02-04-2009 10:47AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, I get that people are saying theres a crisis, I just dont subscribe to the AGW argument, things change, things have always changed, I dont understand how people are convinced that this time its our fault.

Because people are asking why things are changing, which is perhaps something that people would not have done in the past?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so yeah I see no diference between whats happenin now and whats happened repeatedly throughout history…

Could you be a little more specific? When has “what’s happening now” happened in the past?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

…with the exception that now we can observe the phenomonen on a larger scale, Climate change isnt new, our ability to view the planet as a single entity is…

So you’re saying that the recently observed changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and climate have occurred before, but now we have the ability to monitor these changes more accurately? How can you be so sure? Don’t you think it would make more sense to attempt to explain these changes rather than just dismissing them so easily?

AngryHippie · 05-04-2009 11:18AM

try two 100 years storms in the space of a fortnight by two different weather systems in the same place, thats a bit out of the ordinary, even for an el nino year. But on the plus side the drought in Queensland has broken. the dams are creeping over 50% again. woo hoo

baldieman · 10-04-2009 09:42PM

Here's an interesting letter written by a US farmer.

Carbon Credits
I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.
Here is why.
Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.
I asked “what is the source of this money”?
The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.
I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.
So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.
I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? he said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.
I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.
Let’s be clear.
Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?
It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.
Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.
No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely, however, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney:
“Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”

djpbarry · 12-04-2009 04:19PM

baldieman wrote: »

Here's an interesting letter written by a US farmer.

Source please.

baldieman · 12-04-2009 09:27PM

As it was posted on this AGW skeptic blog, i'm sure you'll probably dismiss it,
but the source is not that important as it's simply the view of an individual.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/10/a-farmers-view-on-carbon-credits/#more-6931

hoser expat · 13-04-2009 09:24AM

baldieman wrote: »

As it was posted on this AGW skeptic blog, i'm sure you'll probably dismiss it,
but the source is not that important as it's simply the view of an individual.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/10/a-farmers-view-on-carbon-credits/#more-6931

Oh wow, the source is not important.:rolleyes: I'd like to see the source that shows a US farm carbon program that monitors by satellite. Until I see that source this remains B.S.

baldieman · 13-04-2009 12:14PM

hoser expat wrote: »

Oh wow, the source is not important.:rolleyes: I'd like to see the source that shows a US farm carbon program that monitors by satellite. Until I see that source this remains B.S.

Fare point, if I can find any info on it, I'll post it.

baldieman · 13-04-2009 12:56PM

here's some info that might be relevant.

http://carboncredit.ndfu.org/

http://carboncredit.ndfu.org/questions.html

can't see anything about satellite tracking, but, in my opinion, the basic principle of carbon trading becoming an industry is there.

hoser expat · 13-04-2009 02:24PM

baldieman wrote: »

here's some info that might be relevant.

http://carboncredit.ndfu.org/

http://carboncredit.ndfu.org/questions.html

can't see anything about satellite tracking, but, in my opinion, the basic principle of carbon trading becoming an industry is there.

You're right, the basic industry of carbon trading is making headway in the US, especially in states with large agricultural regions.

But, that letter from the farmer is fishy because they don't monitor carbon by satellite at that scale.

baldieman · 13-04-2009 04:38PM

perhaps the satellite is a loose idea for spot checking (observing) land use and how it's cultivated etc...
It might be easy to mention such an idea at a small local meeting without being clear on how it operates. considering the speaker may have just been a salesman?

Farmers cashing in on carbon credits
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29510634.html
No-till farms qualify
For cropland to qualify for carbon credits, it must be farmed with no-till or conservation tillage practices. Not tilling up the land each season means the carbon dioxide in the soil is not released into the atmosphere, Raemisch said.
A farmer has to adhere to certain specific land management practices, she said. But many farmers in Wisconsin already are doing this and have been for some time, she said.
“If they’re already practicing no-till or conservation tillage, it’s a way for them to get paid for just doing what they’re already doing,” Raemisch said. “So why not?”
It’s a New New Deal

hoser expat · 13-04-2009 04:55PM

baldieman wrote: »

perhaps the satellite is a loose idea for spot checking (observing) land use and how it's cultivated etc...
It might be easy to mention such an idea at a small local meeting without being clear on how it operates. considering the speaker may have just been a salesman?

[/indent]

fair enough....my point was that the original letter from Steve the Farmer stated they are measuring carbon in fields from satellites. But yeah, they could spot check landuse and cultivation practices.

djpbarry · 15-04-2009 12:47PM

baldieman wrote: »

...the source is not that important as it's simply the view of an individual.

It is important in order to establish context.

What point are you trying to make by posting this anyway?

baldieman · 15-04-2009 08:47PM

The point is, AGW is a scientific theory which may or may not be accurate.
But as money and politics become more and more involved, truth and fact become over shadowed and sidelined. Anyway, I thought the article itself put it better then I could, but I guess I should post links.

hoser expat · 15-04-2009 09:49PM

baldieman wrote: »

The point is, AGW is a scientific theory which may or may not be accurate.
But as money and politics become more and more involved, truth and fact become over shadowed and sidelined.

You have summarized the issue very well. And my point, as a scientist, has always been to leave money and politics out of it. Unfortunately they both rear their ugly heads on both side of the argument.

The truth (or at least a rational scientific argument) has been sidelined in the media, but not in the scientific community.

Now whatever happened to Derry? He was an amusing sideline.

O'Morris · 16-04-2009 09:34AM

There was an interesting article in yesterday's Irish Times that I think is very relevant to the debate on how we should respond to the threat of global warming in this country. The environmentalist James Lovelock has predicted that Ireland will be one of the few countries in the world to escape the worst effects of global warming.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0415/1224244720845.html

He forecasts a rapid rise in temperatures within 30 years which will cause widespread famine, but he said Ireland, along with New Zealand, will be spared the worst effects because of its maritime climate, relatively high latitude and under-population.

Ireland will be a “lifeboat for humanity” that might be able to sustain a population of about 10 million people with modern farming methods, but he warned that the country would be overwhelmed with immigrants if it operated an open-door policy.

I think maintaining our relatively low population density will be far more effective means of dealing with the threat of global warming than trying to cut carbon emissions.

oscarBravo · 16-04-2009 10:42AM

Posts by a returning banned user deleted.

djpbarry · 16-04-2009 10:48AM

O'Morris wrote: »

I think maintaining our relatively low population density will be far more effective means of dealing with the threat of global warming...

Oh I wonder how that could be achieved :rolleyes:.

O'Morris · 16-04-2009 11:00AM

djpbarry wrote:

Oh I wonder how that could be achieved

Increased use of contraception and the legalisation of abortion. There was one other thing I was thinking we could do but it has slipped my mind.

Would you agree that a low population density might be beneficial for the environment and might help prevent the worst effects of global warming in this country? Or would you prefer if we aimed to increase our population to pre-famine levels?

djpbarry · 16-04-2009 01:56PM

O'Morris wrote: »

Would you agree that a low population density might be beneficial for the environment...

It might, but I think it’s pretty unlikely. Spreading a population out over a large area is inefficient.

O'Morris · 16-04-2009 03:06PM

djpbarry wrote:

It might, but I think it’s pretty unlikely. Spreading a population out over a large area is inefficient.

Population density is not a measure of how spread out the population is. It's a measure of the size of the population relative to the size of the country. A population can be concentrated in only a few big urban centres with the rest of the country sparsely populated.

We can have both a low-population density and an efficient urban concentration of population. I think it would be much better for the environment if we did that. The smaller our population, the smaller our carbon footprint will be. It would easier to deal with any internal population movement due to the displacement caused by rising sea levels in the future as well.

I've always believed that our low population density will be an important advantage in the 21st century. Reading those comments made by the respected environmentalist James Lovelock has reinforced that opinion.

silverharp · 16-04-2009 03:47PM

O'Morris wrote: »

I've always believed that our low population density will be an important advantage in the 21st century. Reading those comments made by the respected environmentalist James Lovelock has reinforced that opinion.

I'd agree with that , in a way it will be a criminal if we pay money over on the basis of our carbon footprint. as a country I'm guessing our output is much smaller compared to say Holland.

djpbarry · 16-04-2009 04:06PM

O'Morris wrote: »

Population density is not a measure of how spread out the population is. It's a measure of the size of the population relative to the size of the country.

Eh, no. Population density is a measure of population per unit area. Choosing a country’s size as the area by which to measure is an entirely arbitrary selection.

O'Morris wrote: »

A population can be concentrated in only a few big urban centres with the rest of the country sparsely populated.

:rolleyes:

So what will the population density in the cities be? High or low?

O'Morris wrote: »

I've always believed that our low population density will be an important advantage in the 21st century.

Eh, but your advocating high-density urban centres?

O'Morris wrote: »

Reading those comments made by the respected environmentalist James Lovelock has reinforced that opinion.

James Lovelock is respected now? When did that happen?

It doesn’t really matter who says what, it’s the rationale behind what has been said that is important.

O'Morris · 16-04-2009 06:15PM

djpbarry wrote:

Eh, no. Population density is a measure of population per unit area.

In this case the unit area being discussed is the country.

djpbarry wrote:

Choosing a country’s size as the area by which to measure is an entirely arbitrary selection.

It's not an arbrirary selection at all. The costs of global warming will be felt at a national level and so national governments will need to treat their own country's response to the problem with a higher priority than they treat the global response to the problem. In addition to supporting global action to prevent global warming we should also be doing everything we can to minimise the potential costs to our own country.

The size of our population will be one of the factors that will determine how well we deal with the problem. I want our population to stabilise at the current level and not rise by much over the next few decades. As far as I'm concerned global warming is a demographic problem as well as an environmental and climatic problem. It has become politically incorrect to look at the demographic element of the problem but I think that needs to change. Global warming is humanity's greatest challenge and we need to honestly face up to these problems.

djpbarry wrote:

So what will the population density in the cities be? High or low?

It will be high. The total population of the country as a whole will be low.

djpbarry wrote:

Eh, but your advocating high-density urban centres?

I'm not advocating high-density urban centres. I'm advocating a low population density for the country as a whole. If, as you claim, spreading the population thinly across the land is inefficient then we should concentrate the population in cities and towns. If that's not the most efficient method then we should plan for something else. The important thing is the overall population density of the country. As James Lovelock has pointed out we will be spared the worst effects of global warming due to our low population density compared with other countries. I think we should we consider what he said very seriously. I think it's definitely time for us to review our attitude to abortion and to having big families.

djpbarry wrote:

James Lovelock is respected now? When did that happen?

Are you saying James Lovelock isn't respected? Why? Is it because he defied the trendy, liberal environmentalist consensus and expressed support for nuclear energy as the most effective means of halting global warming?

djpbarry wrote:

It doesn’t really matter who says what, it’s the rationale behind what has been said that is important.

I think most environmentalists would agree that a low population growth-rate is preferable to a high population growth-rate when it comes to dealing with the problem of global warming.

bonkey · 16-04-2009 08:01PM

silverharp wrote: »

in a way it will be a criminal if we pay money over on the basis of our carbon footprint. as a country I'm guessing our output is much smaller compared to say Holland.

If our national output were lower, but our output per capita were higher, then surely it would be only fair that the Dutch would be rated better then us?

bonkey · 16-04-2009 08:07PM

O'Morris wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned global warming is a demographic problem as well as an environmental and climatic problem.

Excellent.

Being a global problem, I'm sure you'd also agree that its a question of global demographics, rather than national ones, right? After all, the problem isn't national warming

Global warming is humanity's greatest challenge and we need to honestly face up to these problems.

Absolutely. Humanity need to face up to it. Demographics are - as you say - a big factor. So we can combine these to say that human demographics (i.e. global demographics) are key.

I'm advocating a low population density for the country as a whole.

Surely we should be advocating that our population density be managed as part of a global strategy...that if its more efficient to move Irish abroad, we do so...or that if its more efficient to move people living abroad to Ireland to balance out global demographics, we should do that?

If that's not the most efficient method then we should plan for something else.

Exactly my point. Drawing lines at borders for demographic distribution is almost unquestionably not the most efficient method. Its saying that we ignore efficiency for the sake of borders, despite it being a global problem effecting all of humanity.

Global Warming

Comments