Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet


Quote:

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe. Aren’t we too puny to rival the great forces of nature that shape our planet? Certainly some prominent Australian geologists sceptical of our ability to impact our climate have said as much. But the facts show that we are fundamentally impacting planet Earth in unprecedented ways, and we’ve known about it for a century. Measuring our impact So what are those measures of our geological impact, and how do they compare to the natural energy and material fluxes that shape our planet? Geologists estimate that on average about 10 billion tonnes of sediment have been moved from mountain to sea each year over geological time by rivers and glaciers. Since the onset of agriculture, the river sediment flux has increased about threefold, to about 28 billion tonnes each year. Let’s compare that to our own direct activities. We mine about seven billion tonnes of coal and 2.3 billion tonnes of iron ore each year. We shift several times as much in overburden to access these resources. Add to this the construction aggregate (2.5 billion tonnes in the USA alone), limestone for the three billion tonnes of cement made each year and other excavations for our infrastructure, and we are clearly the dominant geological agent shaping the Earth’s surface today. While many of our excavations are local in scale, they are not always so. In Australia natural erosion removes about 100 million tonnes of sediment each year. With our annual exports of coal and iron ore now at about 600 million tonnes, we have increased the geological erosion rate of the continent by many factors. And in an extraordinary demonstration of our geological power, the proposed Olympic Dam open cut development plans to extract about 14 billion tonnes of rock over a 40-year period. With peak extraction rates of about 400 million tonnes a year, it would excavate enough rock over its life to cover metropolitan Melbourne four metres deep. That’s a lot of rock, even by geological standards. Frustrated fliers in the eastern states will know that volcanoes vent a lot of gas and particulate matter from the interior of the Earth. Over geological time, that material is returned to the Earth through natural mineralization, but we know that it can and does impact climate. So how do we compare? Our best estimates place human industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide and CO₂ at five and 100 times natural volcanic emissions, respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md4beFgy6qA&feature=player_embedded


Quote:

A geological litmus test The geochemical fingerprints of human activity are everywhere. Since the industrial revolution the added CO₂ now dissolved in the oceans has increased acidity by 25%. And it is changing the geological processes operating at the sea floor. We can see traces of the lead we have mined from Broken Hill in modern sediments all around the globe – a geochemical fingerprint of Homo sapiens to be preserved for time immemorial, like the iridium anomaly that marked the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. We even make earthquakes. The largest earthquake in Victoria in the last 30 years was the magnitude five Thomson Dam quake, induced as a direct consequence of the filling of the Thomson dam. Induced quakes are a common occurrence when we first fill large dams, with the largest record being a magnitude six quake in India. Anyone who has seen film of a volcano erupt or those horrific scenes of devastation from the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami can intuitively appreciate the immense energy involved in the natural processes that shape our planet as it vents heat stored deep within its interior. The rate heat is released from the earth – a measure of its natural “metabolic rate” – is well understood. It’s about 44 trillion watts, and reflects the average rate of energy transferred in moving all the continents, making all the mountains, the earthquakes and the volcanoes on our planet in a process we call plate tectonics. By way of contrast, the International Energy Agency estimates our human “energy system” operates at a rate of some 16 trillion watts. So we are already operating at one-third the rate of plate tectonics, and with our energy use doubling every 34 years we are on course to surpass plate tectonics by about 2060. Climate scientists talk about the climate sensitivity in terms of a “radiative forcing” – an obscure term that accounts for the rate of heat energy gain or loss due to a change in a climate parameter. The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics. And we are well on the way to doubling CO₂. In the past hundred years we have added almost 40%, and warming that can only plausibly be attributed to a greenhouse effect is not only heating the atmosphere, but is also pumping heat into the oceans and the crust at a phenomenal rate. When my students measure the temperature in boreholes across Australia they invariably see that almost as much heat is now going into the upper 30-50 metres of the Earth’s crust as is trying to get out – a result entirely consistent with the surface temperature rises measured by climate scientists. Recent measurements suggest the oceans have been heating at 300 trillion watts over the last few decades. The scale of our energy use is truly mind-boggling. In fact, the sheer size of these numbers makes it difficult for most people to grasp and comprehend their significance; few of us have any useful reference frame for comparison.

Quote:

A new measure of energy use To put these numbers into a more human context we need a a new measure for our energy use. The “Hiro” is one. It is the equivalent to the energy released by detonating one Hiroshima “Little Boy” bomb every second. One Hiro equals 60 trillion watts. In these terms, our human energy system operates at a rate of 0.25 Hiros, or one Hiroshima bomb every four seconds. That is the equivalent of more than eight million Hiroshima bombs going off each year. And we are on a trajectory towards the one Hiro mark by 2100, equivalent to the energy release of one bomb each year for every five-square kilometre patch of land on the planet. The ocean heating is at 5 Hiros over the last few decades – the energy equivalent of detonating more than a 150 million Hiroshima bombs in our oceans each year. And the radiative forcing of the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere in the last century is a staggering 13 Hiros. The equivalent in energy terms to almost half a billion Hiroshima bombs each year. The world’s human population has grown so much and so fast – trebling in one century and still rising by more than 70 million a year – that it’s perhaps not surprising that the vast scale of our geological impact is yet to sink in. But it should not be a surprise because the realisation is not new. Undercover geological agents “Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the question whether man, by his prodigious combustion of coal … is producing more [carbon dioxide] than can be eliminated by ordinary natural processes. If this production is excessive, the result eventually may be an unwelcome change in his atmospheric surroundings." One can imagine our shock jocks rolling their eyes at this quote, proclaiming yet more “warmist” propaganda as part of an organised climate science “swindle” hell bent on undermining the modern industrial world, or securing more government largesse. But it only sounds like it might have been written in recent times because I have altered the wording to fit the modern context. In reality, the author did not use “carbon dioxide”. Rather he used “carbonic acid”, a term in vogue generations ago, and a dead giveaway as to its ancestry. And I bet our shock jocks would never guess it originates from one of the most celebrated geologists of his time. The quote is from Arthur Woodward, “keeper of geology in the British Museum”, Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the Royal Linnean society. Woodward’s comments appeared as preface to a classic geological text by Robert Sherlock – “Man as a geological agent” – published in 1923. Intriguingly, Woodward’s quote followed with the suggestion that, “Man … may be approaching a stage when he should pause to consider whether his use and alteration of the crust of the earth itself are for future as well as for present advantage.” Though he didn’t use the term, Woodward was probing the implication of man’s potential to “geo-engineer” the planet, almost 90 years ago.

Quote:

An old story retold Why was a really famous geologist writing this when human population was just one third, and CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuel just 10%, of today’s rates? For one thing Woodward was aware of the work of another giant of science – the Swedish chemist and Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius whose name is still part of the everyday chemistry vernacular. Arrhenius demonstrated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in 1896 estimating that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ would lead to a temperature rise of 5-6°C. A few years later he settled on a 1.6°C warming, not far off the current consensus of 2-4.5°C. The scientific basis for the CO₂ greenhouse effect was established over 100 years ago, before Einstein and relativity, before the Curies and radioactivity, and before Fleming and antibiotics, not to mention DNA, quantum mechanics and plate tectonics. In fact it precedes just about everything we think of as modern science, not to mention Leninism. In his 1923 book, Sherlock commented “Man’s work is … as worthy of a place in geological text-books as are the actions of the sea or the rivers". The dawning of a new geological era It would be no surprise to Sherlock or Woodward that the international geological community is now considering inaugurating a new geological epoch – named the Anthropocene – in recognition of the geological impact of our own species. While climate sceptics are surely not alone in having a sense of disbelief in the immense scale of human activity, these figures speak for themselves. We are indeed a geological agent of unprecedented power. Faced with that stark reality now, it would be folly at best to maintain the fiction that we are too puny to impact the planet – at worst, it is just plain reckless. Whether we like it or not, for better or for worse, we are already engineering our planet. This is the fourth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below: Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community. Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why. Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.

Just in case anyone missed it:

Climate scientists talk about the climate sensitivity in terms of a “radiative forcing” – an obscure term that accounts for the rate of heat energy gain or loss due to a change in a climate parameter.

The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics.


!!!


:o  :o  :o

Tell me Astrosurf, how do we measure any progress when we commit action against undesired climate change through TAXPAYERS MONEY ????

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:44pm:

Tell me Astrosurf, how do we measure any progress when we commit action against undesired climate change through TAXPAYERS MONEY ????

Well, that IS the entire basis of Abbott's Direct Action policy. But Labor and the Greens and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together understands that using the market to put a price on emissions is by far the cheapest mechanism for reducing said emissions.

Quote:

Well, that IS the entire basis of Abbott's Direct Action policy. But Labor and the Greens and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together understands that using the market to put a price on emissions is by far the cheapest mechanism for reducing emissions.

By Astrosurf

IM NOT ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT ABBOTTS DIRECT PLAN,

Im asking about how in the hell are we going to measure any progress of any policy action whether its GILLIARDS CARBON TAX to ABBOTTS DIRECT ACTION, HOW DO WE MEASURE OR MONITOR ANY PROGRESS WHETHER ITS HAVING AN EFFECT AGAINST THE UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE, UNDERTSTAND, COMPREDENDO ????

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:

[quote]Well, that IS the entire basis of Abbott's Direct Action policy. But Labor and the Greens and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together understands that using the market to put a price on emissions is by far the cheapest mechanism for reducing emissions.

By Astrosurf

IM NOT ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT ABBOTTS DIRECT PLAN,

Im asking about how in the hell are we going to measure any progress of any policy action whether its GILLIARDS CARBON TAX to ABBOTTS DIRECT ACTION, HOW DO WE MEASURE ANY PROGRESS WHETHER ITS HAVING AN EFFECT AGAINST THE UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE, UNDERTSTAND, COMPREDENDO ????[/quote]

Compredendo? You moron ::)

Putting a price on emissions isn't supposed "have an effect" on climate change, it is supposed to send a market signal and stimulate investment in the areas required to eventually implement the sort of low carbon economy that CAN "have an effect" on climate change. It's the first step in a very radical shift in the economy, the likes we haven't seen since Watts built his first steam engine.

Quote:

low carbon economy that CAN "have an effect" on climate change

ISNT THE TAX SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE ???

SO HOW DO WE MEASURE IF A LOW CARBON ECONOMY IF WE BECOME IS REVERSING THE UNDERSIRED CLIMATE CHANGE,

ASTROSURF IS THERE ANYWAY OF MEASURING AND MONITERING PROGRESS AGAINST UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE ?????

ARENT YOU GUYS SAYING THE GLOBE IS WARMING UP ???

Yes, when the growth CO2 concentration begin to slow. But pricing emissions won't cause that to happen but it IS an important step in the process that will.

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:06pm:

Quote: low carbon economy that CAN "have an effect" on climate change ISNT THE TAX SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE ??? SO HOW DO WE MEASURE IF A LOW CARBON ECONOMY IF WE BECOME IS REVERSING THE UNDERSIRED CLIMATE CHANGE, ASTROSURF IS THERE ANYWAY OF MEASURING AND MONITERING PROGRESS AGAINST UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE ????? ARENT YOU GUYS SAYING THE GLOBE IS WARMING UP ???

Silly, no need to yell, we know you're here :)

Carbon Tax transforms the economy into a low emissions one.  So, if growing demand for low emission technology increases that in itself is a measurement to effective action against climate change.

But I'm pretty sure this was already explained to you BEFORE you decided to repeat yourself :)  Please don't continue repeating yourself?

Quote:

Yes, when CO2 concentration begin to slow. But pricing emissions won't cause that to happen but it IS an important step in the process that will.

Astro surf, YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION ??

IF TAXPAYERS MONEY IS TO BE THROWN IN THE WIND OVER THIS, HOW DO WE MEASURE OR MONITOR THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY IN THE LONG RUN IS REVERSING THE UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE ??????

The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus

She also used an interesting comments

Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate.

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.


Interesting words "cloud the debate"

Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions"

greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes

water vapor
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
chlorofluorocarbons

So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax?

If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well?

Water Vapor Tax
Methane Tax (Fart Tax)
Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?)
Ozone Tax
Chlorofluorocarbon Tax

and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism?

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

Quote: Yes, when CO2 concentration begin to slow. But pricing emissions won't cause that to happen but it IS an important step in the process that will. Astro surf, YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION ?? IF TAXPAYERS MONEY IS TO BE THROWN IN THE WIND OVER THIS, HOW DO WE MEASURE OR MONITOR THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY IN THE LONG RUN IS REVERSING THE UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE ??????

BTW, who is talking about reversing climate change? Unfortunately it looks like we've surpassed that mission several years ago and since Copenhagen discussion has been about how to AVOID catastrophic climate change (by keeping temperature increase to within 2 degrees).  So, stryder, seems like you don't even know what you're talking about ?!

Quote:

IF TAXPAYERS MONEY IS TO BE THROWN IN THE WIND OVER THIS, HOW DO WE MEASURE OR MONITOR THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY IN THE LONG RUN IS REVERSING THE UNDESIRED CLIMATE CHANGE ??????

;D ;D ;D, Hey didnt some mob of scientists measure that the GLOBE WAS WARMING UP ???

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus She also used an interesting comments Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Interesting words "cloud the debate" Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions" greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes water vapor carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide ozone chlorofluorocarbons So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax? If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well? Water Vapor Tax Methane Tax (Fart Tax) Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?) Ozone Tax Chlorofluorocarbon Tax and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism?

Maqqa, what's your education? After all, it seems you are constantly trying to prove climate change is rubbish. So, if we are to listen to you, I think we are at least entitled to know your background? So, what's your education?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet Quote: CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe. Aren’t we too puny to rival the great forces of nature that shape our planet? Certainly some prominent Australian geologists sceptical of our ability to impact our climate have said as much. But the facts show that we are fundamentally impacting planet Earth in unprecedented ways, and we’ve known about it for a century. Measuring our impact So what are those measures of our geological impact, and how do they compare to the natural energy and material fluxes that shape our planet? Geologists estimate that on average about 10 billion tonnes of sediment have been moved from mountain to sea each year over geological time by rivers and glaciers. Since the onset of agriculture, the river sediment flux has increased about threefold, to about 28 billion tonnes each year. Let’s compare that to our own direct activities. We mine about seven billion tonnes of coal and 2.3 billion tonnes of iron ore each year. We shift several times as much in overburden to access these resources. Add to this the construction aggregate (2.5 billion tonnes in the USA alone), limestone for the three billion tonnes of cement made each year and other excavations for our infrastructure, and we are clearly the dominant geological agent shaping the Earth’s surface today. While many of our excavations are local in scale, they are not always so. In Australia natural erosion removes about 100 million tonnes of sediment each year. With our annual exports of coal and iron ore now at about 600 million tonnes, we have increased the geological erosion rate of the continent by many factors. And in an extraordinary demonstration of our geological power, the proposed Olympic Dam open cut development plans to extract about 14 billion tonnes of rock over a 40-year period. With peak extraction rates of about 400 million tonnes a year, it would excavate enough rock over its life to cover metropolitan Melbourne four metres deep. That’s a lot of rock, even by geological standards. Frustrated fliers in the eastern states will know that volcanoes vent a lot of gas and particulate matter from the interior of the Earth. Over geological time, that material is returned to the Earth through natural mineralization, but we know that it can and does impact climate. So how do we compare? Our best estimates place human industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide and CO₂ at five and 100 times natural volcanic emissions, respectively.

MEASURING OUR IMPACT

and it still only accounts for 3% contribution

It's not being "thrown into the wind", you moron, it will be an investment in our future. And simply repeating the question with ever increasing capitalisation and font size doesn't mean it hasn't been answered. The ONLY metric for measuring the effectiveness of money being spent to combat climate change is the slowing of emissions growth, because only then will we have any hope whatsoever of preventing catastrophic climate change. You nonce.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:31pm: Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet Quote: CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe. Aren’t we too puny to rival the great forces of nature that shape our planet? Certainly some prominent Australian geologists sceptical of our ability to impact our climate have said as much. But the facts show that we are fundamentally impacting planet Earth in unprecedented ways, and we’ve known about it for a century. Measuring our impact So what are those measures of our geological impact, and how do they compare to the natural energy and material fluxes that shape our planet? Geologists estimate that on average about 10 billion tonnes of sediment have been moved from mountain to sea each year over geological time by rivers and glaciers. Since the onset of agriculture, the river sediment flux has increased about threefold, to about 28 billion tonnes each year. Let’s compare that to our own direct activities. We mine about seven billion tonnes of coal and 2.3 billion tonnes of iron ore each year. We shift several times as much in overburden to access these resources. Add to this the construction aggregate (2.5 billion tonnes in the USA alone), limestone for the three billion tonnes of cement made each year and other excavations for our infrastructure, and we are clearly the dominant geological agent shaping the Earth’s surface today. While many of our excavations are local in scale, they are not always so. In Australia natural erosion removes about 100 million tonnes of sediment each year. With our annual exports of coal and iron ore now at about 600 million tonnes, we have increased the geological erosion rate of the continent by many factors. And in an extraordinary demonstration of our geological power, the proposed Olympic Dam open cut development plans to extract about 14 billion tonnes of rock over a 40-year period. With peak extraction rates of about 400 million tonnes a year, it would excavate enough rock over its life to cover metropolitan Melbourne four metres deep. That’s a lot of rock, even by geological standards. Frustrated fliers in the eastern states will know that volcanoes vent a lot of gas and particulate matter from the interior of the Earth. Over geological time, that material is returned to the Earth through natural mineralization, but we know that it can and does impact climate. So how do we compare? Our best estimates place human industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide and CO₂ at five and 100 times natural volcanic emissions, respectively. MEASURING OUR IMPACT and it still only accounts for 3% contribution

AH, once again Maqqa forgets how to read what he highlights.  If you had bothered, you'd realise that the discussion is about human impact on earth IN GENERAL.

Tsk tsk Maqqa, getting sloppy I see.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

MEASURING OUR IMPACT and it still only accounts for 3% contribution

OUR means "we the human race", of which I'm not sure I'd class a cretin like you to be part of.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

Just in case anyone missed it: Climate scientists talk about the climate sensitivity in terms of a “radiative forcing” – an obscure term that accounts for the rate of heat energy gain or loss due to a change in a climate parameter. The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics. !!! :o  :o  :o

But more than a handful of people with academic qualifications call into question the issue of global warming being a matter that needs no further debate.


Quote:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States. The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:17pm: The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus She also used an interesting comments Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Interesting words "cloud the debate" Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions" greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes water vapor carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide ozone chlorofluorocarbons So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax? If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well? Water Vapor Tax Methane Tax (Fart Tax) Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?) Ozone Tax Chlorofluorocarbon Tax and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism? Maqqa, what's your education? After all, it seems you are constantly trying to prove climate change is rubbish. So, if we are to listen to you, I think we are at least entitled to know your background? So, what's your education?

Maqqa is a raging spastic who doesn't understand that ALL emissions of greenhouse gasses will be subject to pricng.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:19pm: MEASURING OUR IMPACT and it still only accounts for 3% contribution OUR means "we the human race", of which I'm not sure I'd class a cretin like you to be part of.

however you want to look at it

it's still only 3%

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:17pm: The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus She also used an interesting comments Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Interesting words "cloud the debate" Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions" greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes water vapor carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide ozone chlorofluorocarbons So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax? If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well? Water Vapor Tax Methane Tax (Fart Tax) Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?) Ozone Tax Chlorofluorocarbon Tax and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism? Maqqa, what's your education? After all, it seems you are constantly trying to prove climate change is rubbish. So, if we are to listen to you, I think we are at least entitled to know your background? So, what's your education?

Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change

You've mentioned that. But you keep trying to give us advice about climate change too. So, what's your education, Maqqa?

salad in wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:26pm:

But more than a handful of people with academic qualifications call into question the issue of global warming being a matter that needs no further debate. Quote: Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States. The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Just out of curiosity, how does lowering emissions impact our environment in a bad way, as proposed by this petition? Just curious...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:30pm: Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change You've mentioned that. But you keep trying to give us advice about climate change too. So, what's your education, Maqqa?

Haven't given any advice

I only question the facts you presented

Quote:

The ONLY metric for measuring the effectiveness of money being spent to combat climate change is the slowing of emissions growth, because only then will we have any hope whatsoever of preventing catastrophic climate change. You nonce.

How do you measure the slowing of emissions growth over the course of years or decades, TO SHOW TAXPAYERS THAT THEIR TAX DOLLARS HAS CONTRIBUTED TO REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE ???  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:30pm: Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change You've mentioned that. But you keep trying to give us advice about climate change too. So, what's your education, Maqqa? Haven't given any advice I only question the facts you presented

Well you do.   You advise that the reports produced are wrong and provide us information about how.  You don't question the science, but refute it based on your own knowledge.  I once again ask, what is your education? Shouldn't be hard to answer, Maqqa!  Why are you deferring from answering?

Wow, the silence is deafening...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:38pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:30pm: Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change You've mentioned that. But you keep trying to give us advice about climate change too. So, what's your education, Maqqa? Haven't given any advice I only question the facts you presented Well you do.   You advise that the reports produced are wrong and provide us information about how.  You don't question the science, but refute it based on your own knowledge.  I once again ask, what is your education? Shouldn't be hard to answer, Maqqa!  Why are you deferring from answering?

Wrong again

I at least read the Terms of Reference and noticed the inconsistencies and I raised it

I also raise the the fact that the Multi-party Climate Change Committee is not neutral

Quote:

Wow, the silence is deafening...

I guess thats how far deep your head is in your ****  ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

Wrong again I at least read the Terms of Reference and noticed the inconsistencies and I raised it I also raise the the fact that the Multi-party Climate Change Committee is not neutral

Rigght, Rigght, but... what's your education?  That's the question. Especially when you post here claiming everyone is wrong?

I'm surprised Maqqa. Why hide? Just be done with it so we can move on!  I want to be able to see you as an expert in the area. Especially if you choose to continuously post 30 threads a day on the topic and how everyone is wrong and you're right.

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

I guess thats how far deep your head is in your ****  ;D ;D

Awww, you stopped shouting! Good on you :)

*chirp chirp*

Quote:

Our effect on the Earth is real

The Moral Compas of Human hating human blaming Imperialist Scientists.

http://www.icangiveyouhouse.com/audio/2010/10/nuclear-bomb-explosion.jpg :(

http://seerpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/iraq-war-child.jpg
:(

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change

Are you really that stupid, or are you purposely lying to deceive us????

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Professor of Geology
Is that a climatologist?

stryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

Quote: Wow, the silence is deafening... I guess thats how far deep your head is in your ****  ;D ;D

LOL touche!

---

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:27pm:

Professor of Geology Is that a climatologist?

Considering he is talking about GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES I hardly see how that is relevant. try reading the article before posting next time, numb nuts.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:38pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:30pm: Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change You've mentioned that. But you keep trying to give us advice about climate change too. So, what's your education, Maqqa? Haven't given any advice I only question the facts you presented Well you do.   You advise that the reports produced are wrong and provide us information about how.  You don't question the science, but refute it based on your own knowledge.  I once again ask, what is your education? Shouldn't be hard to answer, Maqqa!  Why are you deferring from answering?

Maybe because it isnt important. I dont know why you guys give us information from dipsh.ts when we give you scientists of any kind, you go into a wave of why they are not qualified to give that information.

Your information you provide is just as much fair game as the information we provide.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:27pm: Professor of Geology Is that a climatologist? Considering he is talking about GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES I hardly see how that is relevant. try reading the article before posting next time, numb nuts.

Well it is good to know that this thread has nothing at all to do with climate change.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

Well you do.   You advise that the reports produced are wrong and provide us information about how.  You don't question the science, but refute it based on your own knowledge.  I once again ask, what is your education? Shouldn't be hard to answer, Maqqa!  Why are you deferring from answering?

Maybe because it isnt important. I dont know why you guys give us information from dipsh.ts when we give you scientists of any kind, you go into a wave of why they are not qualified to give that information.

Your information you provide is just as much fair game as the information we provide.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any information you provide from scientists of any kind. I only see you provide Alan reviews. But... Alan isn't a scientist... is he?

Anyway, why bother with ya? After all, I've given up trying to convert a skeptic! ;D  I only like playing around with Maqqa because it's fun seeing him twist and turn.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:27pm: Professor of Geology Is that a climatologist? Considering he is talking about GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES I hardly see how that is relevant. try reading the article before posting next time, numb nuts. Well it is good to know that this thread has nothing at all to do with climate change.

Are you trying to say that geological processes and climate change aren't related?!?! ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:33pm: Well you do.   You advise that the reports produced are wrong and provide us information about how.  You don't question the science, but refute it based on your own knowledge.  I once again ask, what is your education? Shouldn't be hard to answer, Maqqa!  Why are you deferring from answering? Maybe because it isnt important. I dont know why you guys give us information from dipsh.ts when we give you scientists of any kind, you go into a wave of why they are not qualified to give that information. Your information you provide is just as much fair game as the information we provide.

Quote:

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any information you provide from scientists of any kind. I only see you provide Alan reviews. But... Alan isn't a scientist... is he? Anyway, why bother with ya? After all, I've given up trying to convert a skeptic! ;D  I only like playing around with Maqqa because it's fun seeing him twist and turn.

If you say I quote Alan Jones, then you must quote donald duck.

YOU NOTICE HOW ITS NEVER THE IMPERIALISTS FAULT - ITS NEVER THE SCIENTISTS FAULT...

http://www.millionface.com/l/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/HiroshimaNagasaki/Hiroshima_Nagasaki_in_1945_2.jpg

ITS NEVER THE FAULT OF BIG BUSINESS, THE MASTER RACE & THE CLASS ENEMY OR THEIR GREED
http://year4.chorltonparkblogs.net/files/2010/12/deforestation1.jpg

ITS NEVER THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT
http://california-recall.com/image-gallery/the_war_president.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UBPN9FOuAtI/TbdOVcxeR2I/AAAAAAAAA_A/8biFTWFBvFQ/s1600/War+and+Minority+Rights.jpg

ITS NEVER JULIAR DILLARDS FAULT
http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/GILLO.jpg

ITS NEVER THE LOVELY 7 PRIVILAGED CARBON CATES FAULT
http://images.wikia.com/familyguy/images/9/96/Cate-Blanchett.jpg
NO THEY WANT TO ASSIGN BLAME TO YOU, THE CONSUMER, YOU THE ELDERLY OR DISABILITY PENSIONER, YOU THE LOW PAID WORKER, YOU THE POOR, YOU THE TOO UGLY, NOT BLONDE ENOUGH, NOT SMART ENOUGH, NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH, NOT RICH ENOUGH - ITS ALL YOUR FAULT IF YOU BELIEVE THEIR HILLARIOUS LATEST ATTEMPT AT A BLOOD LIBEL AND BLAME ASSIGNMENT ONTO THE WEAKEST LINK.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

If you say I quote Alan Jones, then you must quote donald duck.

You don't quote ANYONE, I don't think I've ever seen you post a link to support your claims. You just regurgitate generic and long-ago discredited denialist talking points, of the EXACT kind being spewed out by Alan Jones and all of the rest of the shlock-jock media (and that includes your pet News ltd. trollumnists).

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:45pm: If you say I quote Alan Jones, then you must quote donald duck. You don't quote ANYONE, I don't think I've ever seen you post a link to support your claims. You just regurgitate generic and long-ago discredited denialist talking points, of the EXACT kind being spewed out by Alan Jones and all of the rest of the shlock-jock media (and that includes your pet News ltd. trollumnists).

You would think with all the stuff you spout, you would remember  if there were references. I guess you just go off looking at your daily links before reading the whole post.

i entirely agree that apopulation of some 7 billion, who have chopped down at a complete guess 70 % of the worlds forests  does have a huge effect on the globe.

that's before you throw in pollution, cars, planes, plastics, ...................

there's only a few answers i can see.
none lefties would like

There are a few solutions I can think of too - none of which the Imperialists, fascists, nazis, scientists, Drs , the Rich, the master race ect would like.... 8-)

uhuh, so you have solutions that only the poor losers of the globe will enact.

i rate it 0% chance of eventuating

poor losers are like that

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 12:39am:

uhuh, so you have solutions that only the poor losers of the globe will enact. i rate it 0% chance of eventuating poor losers are like that

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/boothby/forced_migration/images/CambodiaReds.gif :D :D :D :D :D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Quote: An old story retold Why was a really famous geologist writing this when human population was just one third, and CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuel just 10%, of today’s rates? For one thing Woodward was aware of the work of another giant of science – the Swedish chemist and Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius whose name is still part of the everyday chemistry vernacular. Arrhenius demonstrated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in 1896 estimating that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ would lead to a temperature rise of 5-6°C. A few years later he settled on a 1.6°C warming, not far off the current consensus of 2-4.5°C. The scientific basis for the CO₂ greenhouse effect was established over 100 years ago, before Einstein and relativity, before the Curies and radioactivity, and before Fleming and antibiotics, not to mention DNA, quantum mechanics and plate tectonics. In fact it precedes just about everything we think of as modern science, not to mention Leninism. In his 1923 book, Sherlock commented “Man’s work is … as worthy of a place in geological text-books as are the actions of the sea or the rivers". The dawning of a new geological era It would be no surprise to Sherlock or Woodward that the international geological community is now considering inaugurating a new geological epoch – named the Anthropocene – in recognition of the geological impact of our own species. While climate sceptics are surely not alone in having a sense of disbelief in the immense scale of human activity, these figures speak for themselves. We are indeed a geological agent of unprecedented power. Faced with that stark reality now, it would be folly at best to maintain the fiction that we are too puny to impact the planet – at worst, it is just plain reckless. Whether we like it or not, for better or for worse, we are already engineering our planet. This is the fourth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below: Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community. Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why. Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.

The Graduate Diploma lady is under "Part One" link

There's a junkie - alcoholic with a gunshot wound after shaggin a HIV homosexual saying "Whats the problem?" :-?

The Khmer Rouge correctly assigned blame onto the fascists like Lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists and professional people in any field including the army.  Some of their methods may have seemed crude, but when you are aware of the ruthlessness of the predator class and what their ideology is and what they are capable of it was perfectly understandable they protect the Earth and humanity from this plague of greed and corruption. :)

Those making the most noise about the Carbon footprint - the scientists ect are the ones most responsible for climate change and AGW - remember its they who have failed - it is they who have the unsustainable solution.

The peasant revolution offers the solution to global carbon emissions and sustainability that the global earth rapists cannot - wilol not.  Their only solution is to tax the poor. :)

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:18pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:17pm: The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus She also used an interesting comments Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Interesting words "cloud the debate" Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions" greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes water vapor carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide ozone chlorofluorocarbons So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax? If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well? Water Vapor Tax Methane Tax (Fart Tax) Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?) Ozone Tax Chlorofluorocarbon Tax and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism? Maqqa, what's your education? After all, it seems you are constantly trying to prove climate change is rubbish. So, if we are to listen to you, I think we are at least entitled to know your background? So, what's your education? Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change

Admittedly not as qualified as Garnaut being a Professor of Economics though maqqa. :)

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 10:27pm: Professor of Geology Is that a climatologist? Considering he is talking about GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES I hardly see how that is relevant. try reading the article before posting next time, numb nuts. Well it is good to know that this thread has nothing at all to do with climate change.

did the atom bomb or the hydrogen bomb have any impact on climate.. they were both invented by scientists were they not? also our rockets that we blast off into outer space all born out of science.

I still think the cows have a lot to answer for prog.well its certainly isnt anything I have done so there!!

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 6:55am:

Admittedly not as qualified as Garnaut being a Professor of Economics though maqqa. :)

Yes, a professor of economics discussing how to transform our ECONOMY into a low carbon emission one.

But I guess you're right...only shockjocks and people with "life experience" have the right expertise to work that out, ey? ;D

I find it interesting that mozz can start a thread to try to haul in macca.. yet I have never seen one on prevail...

cods wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

I find it interesting that mozz can start a thread to try to haul in macca.. yet I have never seen one on prevail...

prevail doesn't start 1000 threads about the same thing a day.

But I do agree something needs to be done about the prevail troll.

Reported for personal abuse.

Also - the scientists, economists, Lawyers, Doctors ect have had their chance and they have failed - it is appropriate to assign full responsibility and blame for the rape of the planet and the earth changes on them - especially blame on those committed to growth. 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 10:16am:

Reported for personal abuse. Also - the scientists, economists, Lawyers, Doctors ect have had their chance and they have failed - it is appropriate to assign full responsibility and blame for the rape of the planet and the earth changes on them - especially blame on those committed to growth. 8-)

awww you didn't post an image :( :(

Prevailing wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 10:16am:

Reported for personal abuse. Also - the scientists, economists, Lawyers, Doctors ect have had their chance and they have failed - it is appropriate to assign full responsibility and blame for the rape of the planet and the earth changes on them - especially blame on those committed to growth. 8-)

prevail I get fed up with you filling up the pages with the same thing the same pictures all off topic.. your a nutter..

like or hate macca.. he is using the news of the day.. its all about this same boring incompetent govt I grant you.. but what else is there????????????

and as it a political board.. I see nothing wrong with maccas threads... they are all different.. for the most part..

just because they hit a raw nerve isnt his fault.

but prevail if you could just stop the adnauseum same posts all the time..and stop filling the pages up have a little respect for others.and they may respect you

Evidently I have hit a raw nerve....I am on topic, I am relevant and its time you stopped resorting to personal abuse for it - I make no apology for assigning full responsibility for AGW onto Government, Economists, Business, Scientists, Doctors, teachers, engineers ect - they who rape the Earth and kill the poor must pay the price of their Carbon footprint.  I assign blame where it belongs.  The Earth cannot sustain the rapists. 8-)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BisAUOY9kFU/TTBRo7qgt1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/vdzcbrlNwG8/s1600/nazisuperscience.jpg

cods wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:16am: Reported for personal abuse. Also - the scientists, economists, Lawyers, Doctors ect have had their chance and they have failed - it is appropriate to assign full responsibility and blame for the rape of the planet and the earth changes on them - especially blame on those committed to growth. 8-) prevail I get fed up with you filling up the pages with the same thing the same pictures all off topic.. your a nutter.. like or hate macca.. he is using the news of the day.. its all about this same boring incompetent govt I grant you.. but what else is there???????????? and as it a political board.. I see nothing wrong with maccas threads... they are all different.. for the most part.. just because they hit a raw nerve isnt his fault. but prevail if you could just stop the adnauseum same posts all the time..and stop filling the pages up have a little respect for others.and they may respect you

While I can't speak for anyone else, I can assure you the only nerve they hit for me is the same as the one that gets hit for you when you look at preval's posts. It is annoying to look for interesting topics to discuss when Maqqa floods the forum with 1000 items about the EXACT SAME THING.

And then as soon as he is shown to be a dud he goes and hides.

Prevailing wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

Evidently I have hit a raw nerve....I am on topic, I am relevant and its time you stopped resorting to personal abuse for it - I make no apology for assigning full responsibility for AGW onto Government, Economists, Business, Scientists, Doctors, teachers, engineers ect - they who rape the Earth and kill the poor must pay the price of their Carbon footprint.  I assign blame where it belongs.  The Earth cannot sustain the rapists. 8-) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BisAUOY9kFU/TTBRo7qgt1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/vdzcbrlNwG8/s1600/nazisuperscience.jpg

ahh, and there's the image. Good troll :)

And what a cracking image it is.

Astro, the left version of Macca.

Multi threads on the same topic.

Well done mate, just another spamming tool to add to the box.

http://behindthenewsleeds.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/communism.jpg :D

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ahoJXwM2zgo/TCTw9rCx4TI/AAAAAAAABh8/ZG9fufFgWuE/s1600/fruitloops.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/1102724/Communism_Is_Good_For_You.jpg :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ahoJXwM2zgo/TCTw9rCx4TI/AAAAAAAABh8/ZG9fufFgWuE/s1600/fruitloops.jpg

How did you find a picture of Prevailing and his friends?

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 11:16am: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ahoJXwM2zgo/TCTw9rCx4TI/AAAAAAAABh8/ZG9fufFgWuE/s1600/fruitloops.jpg How did you find a picture of Prevailing and his friends?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm confused. Does he think Nazis are communists?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

I'm confused. Does he think Nazis are communists?

YOU'RE confused?  Not half as confused as he is.  Who knows what goes on in that head of his?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 12:48am:

The Graduate Diploma lady is under "Part One" link

She's the EDITOR of the publication, you mindless fool. Did you not look at the signatories?


Quote:

Signatories Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, UWA Dr Julie Trotter, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Oceans Institute, UWA Winthrop Professor Malcolm McCulloch, F.R.S., Premier’s Research Fellow, UWA Oceans Institute, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Professor Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA Dr Thomas Stemler, Assistant Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Dr. Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, ANU Prof Michael Ashley, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas Prof Ian Enting, ARC Centre for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne Prof John Wiseman, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne Associate Professor Ben Newell, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW Dr Alex Sen Gupta Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof. Mike Archer AM, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW Dr. Katrin Meissner, ARC Future Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW Dr Jason Evans, ARC Australian Research Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ Dr Andy Hogg, Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU Prof John Quiggin, School of Economics, School of Political Science & Intnl Studies, UQ Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide Prof Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne Dr Michael Box, Associate Professor, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW Prof Corey Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide Dr Paul Dargusch, School of Agriculture & Food Science, UQ Prof Nigel Tapper, Professor Environmental Science, School of Geography and Environmental Science Monash University Prof Jason Beringer, Associate Professor & Deputy Dean of Research, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University Prof Neville Nicholls, Professorial Fellow, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University Prof Dave Griggs, Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University Prof Peter Sly, Medicine Faculty, School of Paediatrics & Child Health, UQ Dr Pauline Grierson, Senior Lecturer, School of Plant Biology, Ecosystems Research Group, Director of West Australian Biogeochemistry Centre, UWA Prof Jurg Keller, IWA Fellow, Advanced Water Management Centre, UQ Prof Amanda Lynch, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University A/Prof Steve Siems, School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University Prof Justin Brookes, Director, Water Research Centre, The University of Adelaide Prof Glenn Albrecht, Professor of Sustainability, Director: Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), Murdoch University Winthrop Professor Steven Smith, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, UWA Dr Kerrie Unsworth, School of Business, UWA Dr Pieter Poot, Assistant Professor in Plant Conservation Biology, School of Plant Biology, UWA Adam McHugh, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Energy, Murdoch University Dr Louise Bruce, Research Associate, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Dr Ailie Gallant, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne Dr Will J Grant, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, ANU Rick A. Baartman, Fellow of the American Physical Society William GC Raper, Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO (retired) Dr Chris Riedy, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney Ben McNeil, Senior Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Paul Beckwith, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa Tim Leslie, PhD candidate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Dr Peter Manins, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (post-retirement Fellow) Prof Philip Jennings, Professor of Energy Studies, Murdoch University Dr John Tibby, Senior Lecturer, Geography, Environment and Population, University of Adelaide

Quote:

Prof Ray Wills, Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Jess Robertson, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU Dr Paul Tregoning, Senior Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU Dr Doone Wyborn, Adjunct Professor, Geothermal Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland Dr. Jonathan Whale, Director, National Small Wind Turbine Centre (NSWTC), Murdoch University Dr Tas van Ommen, Australian Antarctic Division, Cryosphere Program Leader, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC Dr Jim Salinger, Honorary Research Associate, School of Environment, University of Auckland Dr P. Timon McPhearson, Assistant Professor of Urban Ecology, Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, New York Prof Deo Prasad, Director Masters in Sustainable Development, UNSW Prof Rob Harcourt, Facility Leader, Australian Animal Tagging, Monitoring System Integrated Marine Observing System and Professor of Marine Ecology, Macquarie University Dr John Hunter, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC, University of Tasmania Dr Michael Brown, ARC Future Fellow & Senior Lecturer, School of Physics, Monash University Dr Karen McNamara, Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific Dr Paul Marshall, Director – Climate Change, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Dr Ivan Haigh, Post-doctoral Research Associate, UWA Oceans Institute and School of Environmental Systems Engineering Dr Ian Allison, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 6:55am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:18pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:17pm: The author's claim to fame is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism in 2010 is a bonus She also used an interesting comments Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Interesting words "cloud the debate" Then she used the words "human greenhouse gas emissions" greenhouse gas emissions is all encompassing and not just carbon - it includes water vapor carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide ozone chlorofluorocarbons So are we having a Greenhouse Gas tax or Carbon Tax? If we are going to have a CARBON Tax - then are we looking to have a tax on all the other gases as well? Water Vapor Tax Methane Tax (Fart Tax) Nitrous Oxide Tax (laughing gas tax?) Ozone Tax Chlorofluorocarbon Tax and we are to take this expert advice and summary from a little girl who just graduated with a Grad Dip in Journalism? Maqqa, what's your education? After all, it seems you are constantly trying to prove climate change is rubbish. So, if we are to listen to you, I think we are at least entitled to know your background? So, what's your education? Still only a Grad Dip in Journalism trying to give advice about climate change Admittedly not as qualified as Garnaut being a Professor of Economics though maqqa. :)

The only way you guys can try and make a point  against The Conversation's series is by lying. Says a lot about who weak your position is and the type of people you are

I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts.

You have already been answered on the signatories. As you like to say to anyone who presents a scientist that is not on the AGW side and disagrees with man made climate change affect. Then you waffle on about why they are not qualified because they are not climatologists.

Well where are the climatologists in your list if this thread has anything to do about climate?

The fascists have shot themselves in the foot, because they are the big polluters, they are the Earths rapists and plunderers, they leave the Carbon footprint - they must pay.  Its a matter of assigning blame correctly to business, Government, the Military, Doctors, Lawyers, Economists, Scientists, Engineers, teachers ect - they have failed - they are a liability - they are the weakest link - goodbye. 8-)

... wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts.

Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

You have already been answered on the signatories. As you like to say to anyone who presents a scientist that is not on the AGW side and disagrees with man made climate change affect. Then you waffle on about why they are not qualified because they are not climatologists. Well where are the climatologists in your list if this thread has anything to do about climate?

You idiot. The ONE example you are referring to was a piss take on bogarde saying that signatories on that list aren't climate scientists because they don't have "climatologist" in their title ::)

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll40/JazzEx022/tried-you-have-jpg.gif?t=1261249767 ::) ::)

Look - someone has to tap these idiots on the shoulder and tell them they have failed - time to go - it might as well be me. :)

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies?

Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HHU05_zo3Pw/SYCxyz3E8TI/AAAAAAAAAVY/KXh56OXG26s/s320/spockfw8.jpg  :D ;D :D

... wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:24pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:02pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies? Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa?

Well, HAVE you told, Maqqa? Because I only ever use oversized fotns when replying to Maqqa's own oversized font.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:

... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:24pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:02pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies? Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa? Well, HAVE you told, Maqqa? Because I only ever use oversized fotns when replying to Maqqa's own oversized font.

'
NO, because I haven't notcied maqqa using big fonts excessively.

... wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:45pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:24pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:02pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies? Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa? Well, HAVE you told, Maqqa? Because I only ever use oversized fotns when replying to Maqqa's own oversized font. ' NO, because I haven't notcied maqqa using big fonts excessively.

Hahahahaha! None are so blind as those who won't see. ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:47pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:45pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:24pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:02pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies? Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa? Well, HAVE you told, Maqqa? Because I only ever use oversized fotns when replying to Maqqa's own oversized font. ' NO, because I haven't notcied maqqa using big fonts excessively. Hahahahaha! None are so blind as those who won't see. ;D

What about those who don't bother reading maqqas threads because they are lame and boring?  They must be prettty blind too....

... wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:48pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:47pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:45pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:24pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:02pm: ... wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm: I've told buzz, and now I'll tell you astro - using big fonts and/or fancy colours doesn't add substance to your posts. Have you told Maqqa, or do you save your judgements only for your political enemies? Why would you assume you are my political enemy, or that I have any common bond with maqqa? Well, HAVE you told, Maqqa? Because I only ever use oversized fotns when replying to Maqqa's own oversized font. ' NO, because I haven't notcied maqqa using big fonts excessively. Hahahahaha! None are so blind as those who won't see. ;D What about those who don't bother reading maqqas threads because they are lame and boring?  They must be prettty blind too....

Whoi says I don't read them? i quite often browse The Australian.

Look out for the Maunder Minimum - a once in 400 year event which caused the mini ice age. and it just happened again!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 7:33pm:

Look out for the Maunder Minimum - a once in 400 year event which caused the mini ice age. and it just happened again!!!

Woo woo! :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 7:33pm:

Look out for the Maunder Minimum - a once in 400 year event which caused the mini ice age. and it just happened again!!!

Going by the length of the minimum, it looks like we have found our reason why there is no rush to fix CO2 levels. Giving that China will actually reduce CO2 level in the year ?? (please add year AGWer's) and their CO2 levels will be ?? (please add CO2 levels AGWer's) in that year compared to 2011 levels of ??, and by then we will still be in a cooling period.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 12:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 7:33pm: Look out for the Maunder Minimum - a once in 400 year event which caused the mini ice age. and it just happened again!!! Going by the length of the minimum, it looks like we have found our reason why there is no rush to fix CO2 levels. Giving that China will actually reduce CO2 level in the year ?? (please add year AGWer's) and their CO2 levels will be ?? (please add CO2 levels AGWer's) in that year compared to 2011 levels of ??, and by then we will still be in a cooling period.

No we won't, you idiot. And the figure you are looking for 500 Gt for the whole planet.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 12:25am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 7:33pm: Look out for the Maunder Minimum - a once in 400 year event which caused the mini ice age. and it just happened again!!! Going by the length of the minimum, it looks like we have found our reason why there is no rush to fix CO2 levels. Giving that China will actually reduce CO2 level in the year ?? (please add year AGWer's) and their CO2 levels will be ?? (please add CO2 levels AGWer's) in that year compared to 2011 levels of ??, and by then we will still be in a cooling period. No we won't, you idiot. And the figure you are looking for 500 Gt for the whole planet.

You wont (please add CO2 levels AGWer's) because there is no rush?

Are you blind as well as stupid? 500 Gt. And, no, as in 'no we WON'T be in a "cooling cycle". That is patently false.


Quote:

Everything has some uncertainty, but the uncertainty in this case lies mostly in the timing, not in the essential result. Ice sheets are sensitive to warming somewhere in this vicinity of temperature change and the climate system will yield 2°C warming somewhere in the vicinity of 800–1000Gt of carbon emissions. If the climate is a bit less sensitive than we think then we might have a little bit more wiggle room than the 250–450Gt allotment, but not much, and we’ll exceed that allotment very soon thereafter anyway. We’re only a few decades away from a major tipping point, plus or minus only about a decade. The rate at which the ice sheets would melt is fairly uncertain, but not the result that says we are very close to a tipping point committing to such melt and breakdown. If we were to keep remaining emissions inside the 250–450Gt carbon allocation, we would need to take account of the inertia in energy systems and infrastructure, which set some limits on the maximum rate that emissions can be reduced. To stay within the budget, we can’t hope to emit 10Gt a year (the present emissions rate) for the next thirty years and then reduce emissions suddenly to zero. Rather, net emissions would need to be phased down to zero to stay within the budget. The longer stringent emissions reductions are delayed, the more drastic they must be to stay within the 250–450Gt budget. With more than a small delay, the reductions needed are faster than can be achieved in turning over the stock of emitting infrastructure. Thus, if we were to stay within this budget, dramatic emission reductions would have to begin now. Delayed action on stringent emissions reductions almost certainly implies overshooting the thresholds and locking in vast long term impacts.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

Are you blind as well as stupid? 500 Gt. And, no, as in 'no we WON'T be in a "cooling cycle". That is patently false. Quote: Everything has some uncertainty, but the uncertainty in this case lies mostly in the timing, not in the essential result. Ice sheets are sensitive to warming somewhere in this vicinity of temperature change and the climate system will yield 2°C warming somewhere in the vicinity of 800–1000Gt of carbon emissions. If the climate is a bit less sensitive than we think then we might have a little bit more wiggle room than the 250–450Gt allotment, but not much, and we’ll exceed that allotment very soon thereafter anyway. We’re only a few decades away from a major tipping point, plus or minus only about a decade. The rate at which the ice sheets would melt is fairly uncertain, but not the result that says we are very close to a tipping point committing to such melt and breakdown. If we were to keep remaining emissions inside the 250–450Gt carbon allocation, we would need to take account of the inertia in energy systems and infrastructure, which set some limits on the maximum rate that emissions can be reduced. To stay within the budget, we can’t hope to emit 10Gt a year (the present emissions rate) for the next thirty years and then reduce emissions suddenly to zero. Rather, net emissions would need to be phased down to zero to stay within the budget. The longer stringent emissions reductions are delayed, the more drastic they must be to stay within the 250–450Gt budget. With more than a small delay, the reductions needed are faster than can be achieved in turning over the stock of emitting infrastructure. Thus, if we were to stay within this budget, dramatic emission reductions would have to begin now. Delayed action on stringent emissions reductions almost certainly implies overshooting the thresholds and locking in vast long term impacts.

So you could answer this conundrum. In what year will China actually reduce emissions and what will their CO2 levels be in that year compared to 2011 levels.

It needs to happen by about 2050 if we are to have any hope of keeping within the 1000 Gt budget limit. But China is going to be in a much better position than us to do so because, unlike us, they are the worlds biggest investors into renewable energy atm, while we are still dithering around trying to put a price on carbon. In many respects, they are already waaay ahead of us.