Jump to content

GLOBAL DISASTER BOARD


wolverine

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 892
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree a tax.

 

Reason is, provide no alternative, then make you pay more, and not invest the proceeds into the alternative energy. Look at PAX for eg, they could provide Adelaide with most of the energy for the city, but Rudd won't give them a small grant for drilling, why because its a solution. He just wants no option, then charge us more, take that charge a wack it in general revenue to be wasted.

 

An other interesting fact, that the ozone hole was already there in the 1950s when it first was detected, solar/cosmic rays and other factors have more effect then humans. Like CO2, Volcanoes, ocean currents, mountains, solar output, incline of the pole/earth, rates of spin etc have more effect on the climate then humans....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was refering to the human impact on the health of the earth, not climate change.

 

I have no view on climate change as I think it would be near impossible to measure human impact as against bushfires, volcanoes etc as you pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi frankmal (and anyone else)

 

I'm not convinved that an ice cube in a glass is a suitable model for this scenario.

The ice on the Antarctic continent is over 10 km thick and does not float in water like an ice cube. Same with the ice on Greenland.

I don't know enough to completely scruitinise this comparison but I think the cute little story is on shakey ground already.

 

As for Michel Sauret, who is he? The only M.S. I could find described himself as a 23 year old who:

 

 

"I'm a Christian, I'm a man and I'm an author.

I value those qualities in that order.As a Christian I belong to God alone, and all my talents and blessings are because of him........"

 

 

Well, regardless, he sure ain't conversant with the basics if he thinks the lithosphere and the stratosphere cause isostacy. Also, what is the point to the story? Is he complaining about increased taxes? Is that what it really boils down to?

As for Tim Ball, he cuts a very lonely figure. His ramping up of his qualifications would put many small exploration companies to shame! He too, just like that other nuts-o Nils-Axel MÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¶rne, is an allied expert of Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," a lobby organisation that are working hard at convincing us that toxic sludge is good [sorry, got carried away there, I was paraphrasing the title of a book about the history of PR].

Australia has its fare share of self promoting advocacy mouth pieces like Bob Carter and the omnipresent Ian Plimer.

We just had one of the hottest summers on record (45 degrees in Adelaide, bushfires in Victoria). Floods in Queensland and NSW. There is no water in the Murray River for anymore irrigation. It is not even an El nino/la nina peak. To top it off, some dumb-arsed Minister suggested that we can rely on groundwater (which has been rooted along time ago) if we need a drink.

Exactly what would the anti-changers like to see before they recognise the risk or the phenomenon itself? I reckon most of these people are probably thinking 'not my problem mate, I'll be long dead before then'.

I think that you don't necessarily have to believe that climate change will happen. What is essential is that, at minimum, we consider it as a risk which has to be assessed and tackled if it poses a threat to humanity. If you don't give a rats arse about people, that's fine, stand up and be counted but I think most people do care.

Is anyone buying Areva shares?

zio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't think the earth needs saving from us, there have been many other distasters far worse then man in geological history, massive asteroid strikes, reversal of poles, the whole earth covered in ice, most species don't last 5-10million years. The earth doesn't need saving from us, we need saving from ourself! We are not as invincible as we think, one large volcanic eruption and we could have a 2-3 year winter easily with no photosynthesis and there are now 6 billion on the planet. Or one large asteroid and it's game over humans.

 

The parts of largest Hawaii island has before slipped into the ocean, if a large portion of that slips suddenly it could cause enormous problems. Same with parts of the Canaries islands for the Atlantic. Like I said, if the west Antarctica slips off as well we'll get an instant 6 metres. But essentially global warming is not as bad as the doom media thinks, it's worse to have ice ages, and volcanoes or large asteroids hit the earth which happen pretty commonly. These can cause instant constant winters with sulfuric rain.

 

Then we have the super volcanoes, like Yellowstone which erupts on average every 600,000 years, and its 640,000 years now since the last eruption and activity is increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the ice and water it depends. Parts of the Antarctic ice sheets which the media currently whinge about are already floating on water, so if it melts it has no effect really on sea levels. The parts which are a problem are the ones that sit on land, if they slide off then you get problems. The West Antarctic massive ice sheet has between the east a part which sea water goes under that is undermining it, that's the problem part.

 

Sea ice hasn't changed around it though in the last 30+ years http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-c...tarctic-sea-ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going back through the posts (too much red last night)

 

Water expands by approx 9 - 10 % when frozen. Approx 8% of an iceberg is above water, so theoretically if the iceberg melts, the surrounding water level should drop between 1-2% ............. NOT RISE !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep that's right, ice has air trapped in it. Its like when you freeze something, fill up a bottle of water to the top freeze it and it will break, since the ice takes slightly more volume as a solid, but in liquid form its slightly less.

 

So all that broken sea is not a problem, only if it comes off the land. Problem is if there is reduce sea ice, there is less reflection into space so things warm. But we know from all the studies that sea ice around Antarctica is exactly the same as the 1970s. Probably bits were breaking off then, we just didn't look at it with 50 satellites so we didn't know lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists find that feeding cows gold reduce their methane output?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...