longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:
Outcomes are usually somewhere between worst and best cases. The question is, where in the spectrum of possibilities do we want to end up? You seem to be saying that "rarely ever" means "never".

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:
Why take any risk seriously?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:42am:







The kind of world that Longy wants for us.

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:



You're not paying attention. Talk to the facts
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380242167/45#45

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:


You could be right.

Quote:


Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols.

Unfortunately, the one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities.

http://www.space.com/11030-nasa-glory-climate-satellite-failure.html


So there is a big gap in our understanding there, although as China gradually cleans up its act, ironically we'll start to see far greater warming.

Do you see how the negative forcing of aerosols (in blue) cancels out some of  the positive forcing of CO2 (not forgetting variations in solar forcing, volcanic negative forcing etc)

Sea levels have been rising since around the 1800's when we started to climb out of the mini ice age by temperature going up.

Temperatures have been rising since the 1800's.

Its only natural that temperature co2 and ocean levels rise.

The question that everyone should be asking is how much of the warming is actually due to manmade CO2.

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:33am:


Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer?

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:04am:


lol - you don't know?

I am quoting the 1.4 trillion dollar subsidy figure that the fossil fuel sectors receive each year on a global basis.

You can quote the IMF if you like - their estimate is 1.9 trillion dollars per year.

And this figure does not include the massive military spending that is directly linked to Oil Wars and security etc.

In Australia, the COAL INDUSTRY alone receives about 9 Billion dollars per year from that tax payer.

Meanwhile renewable energy options have to scrounge around for a few million dollars to build pilot and demonstration scale plants or conduct R&D and feasibility studies.

Now Abbott has scrapped the Clean Energy funding corporation. A funding model used in many countries overseas, including California and GErmany.

We are sick nation for a very good reason Mr Ajax.

I wonder if you know what that reason is?