Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
You believe what you want to believe Lee, I don't believe anything about climate change, I look for credible evidence presented accurately and then form opinions based on evidence rather than beliefs.

Which brings me back to your favourite luke-warmists, the mob at Uni of Alabama Huntsville, who don't seem to get their updates posted here when they show warming.

Their October update has come back with warming of 0.35C over their deceptive recently altered baseline. They are trying to give the impression of less warming by changing their baseline from 1981-2010 to now being 1991-2020. If we went back to their previous baseline the warming is 0.51C. Of course their previous baseline doesn't go back beyond the point when we started pumping gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, but the satellite measures don't go back beyond December 1978 so there is a good reason for that baseline. What is also noticeable about their "measure" of warming is that it is an outlier, not only is it claiming less warming than surface measure, but they claim warming of 0.14C per decade, in contrast to the other satellite measure of temperature which claims warming of 0.214C per decade. Given UAH are the outliers you really have to conclude they have an agenda: they moved their baseline to minimise the headline figure and their findings are below just about all other measures.

It is happening and it is serious, no matter what some want to believe.

DS
My god, I don't know how many times I have to explain the industry standard of 30-year baselines and climate normals. You just keep regurgitating it as though it's chicanery.

Happy to post the chart, there is no significant difference.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2021_v6.jpg
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
17,850
21,180
why not reduce consumption?
if consumption of cows was reduced, farming of cows would reduce, and the emissions from cows would reduce. pretty simple really.

We should be looking at both. I'm not sure why anaerobic digestion hasn't been embraced by more councils and governments around the world. In 2020 Climatewatch released details on the sectors that are generating greenhouse gases and landfill is 1.9% (the same as aviation which gets a lot of bad press around emissions). I woiuld hazard a guess that one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in landfill is household food waste. I remember talking about anaerobic digestion 15-20 years ago so the tech has been around for a long time.

Anaerobic digestion is much better than a normal composting process purely because it can also generate power at the same time as creating an enriched fertiliser for use in the farming industry. The other massive benefit from it is that ALL food wastes can be included in the process, whereas for composting there is a lot of exemptions (bones etc).

Reducing emissions and generating power by doing so, seems like a hugely logical decision. For some reason councils are intent on increasing your number of bins to include 1 for glass (which already can be picked at recycling centres, yet there are many councils out there that do not allow for food recycling in their green waste bin. You could probably swap your collections around for the green waste bin to be collected weekly and your normal trash collection every 2 weeks.

Consumption is certainly part of it, and they should be able to generate this by focusing away from cattle farming. Reduction rather than elimination of cattle farming is important IMO but so is improvement in waste practises. This stuff just shouldn't be going to landfill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,661
11,699
I think other people wanting to dictate what I eat is the very definition of nonsense. It isn't shark fin soup or sun bear bile.
Shark fin soup? Didn't someone start a thread on here suggesting there has been an increase in shark attacks because they are protected and their numbers are out of control? Maybe you have seen it.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Shark fin soup? Didn't someone start a thread on here suggesting there has been an increase in shark attacks because they are protected and their numbers are out of control? Maybe you have seen it.
I don't support the indiscrimate purging of the seas that the likes of China are carrying out. Man-eating tigers, whites, bulls aren't the ones being targeted by trawlers. Those bastards can go.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Champion
Aug 20, 2005
4,939
6,449
CCS is bullsh1t and everyone knows it.

DS

Why? Which scientific papers / evidence do you use to call *smile* on this technology or is it more an ideological thing because it maintains the status quo of fossil fuels (although don’t discount biofuels).

It’s filling up underground holes with co2 - the co2 came out of these holes either as crude oil, natural gas or co2 in the production process.

You will find the net zero 2050 targets rely heavily on ccs. You are basically calling *smile* on many countries plans to achieve zero.

As a carbon price comes into force, this technology will be a big part of any solution IMO as companies seek to reduce the footprint of their products.


I’ll post separately later but I’m reading a book on degrowth. The costs on the planet to switch to renewables are eye popping too (metals,rare earth, mining etc). Unless we fix the cancer that is unrestrained global growth we are *smile*.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
25,567
11,443
Shark fin soup? Didn't someone start a thread on here suggesting there has been an increase in shark attacks because they are protected and their numbers are out of control? Maybe you have seen it.
There'd be less shark attacks if there was less bait floating around in budgie smugglers.

Way bigger issues to worry about than a handful of shark lunches per year.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,874
Melbourne
Lee, look at the graph you posted, what is the headline? The headline is "+0.37 deg C". It would be "+0.51deg C" if they didn't change their baseline to a more recent baseline which is well after warming began. I never said a 30 year average for the baseline was an issue, but nice straw man anyway, what I said, and you know this but are just trying to deflect, is that shifting the baseline to a more recent period is an attempt to deceive by minimising the headline amount of warming.

That UAH are an outlier is obvious, we can see it from the amount of warming they claim compared to other temperature measures:

rate2000-1.jpg


They are clearly the outlier, but I suppose that's convenient when Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, and Ross McKitrick go and do their talks to their RWNJ mates at the Heartland Institute.

CCS, yep, that IEA article points to increasing CCS capacity. It defines a "large" CCS facility as anything which captures at least 0.8MT a year and the capacity in 2020 shows they are managing to capture 40MT per year. Which, as I said, is bullsh1t given that we emitted 34.8 billion tonnes of carbon in 2020, and that was slightly down on 2019. At 40MT they only need to create 870,000 times the capacity and CCS can solve out carbon problems. Plus, they put the carbon underground, ok, then what - how do they prevent it leaking out, for how long does it need to be stored? Almost as bad as trying to store toxic nuclear waste for 250,000 years.

What we have to do is reduce energy consumption (unrestrained global growth is clearly an issue here), move everything we can to clean energy and then maybe we think about some CCS.

The first step, quite obviously, is to stop subsidising fossil fuels, something Australia is notorious for.

Let's get on board the future. Australia has to be one of the most blessed countries on Earth to benefit from a shift to renewable energy. We have the sun, the wind, the space to locate solar farms and wind turbines, to be a renewable energy superpower (geez, even the Murdoch press have cottoned on to this after a few decades of it staring them in the face). We need a less short-sighted and incompetent government so we can get on with it.

DS
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Lee, look at the graph you posted, what is the headline? The headline is "+0.37 deg C". It would be "+0.51deg C" if they didn't change their baseline to a more recent baseline which is well after warming began. I never said a 30 year average for the baseline was an issue, but nice straw man anyway, what I said, and you know this but are just trying to deflect, is that shifting the baseline to a more recent period is an attempt to deceive by minimising the headline amount of warming.
FOR. *smile*'S. *smile*. SAKE.

I swear you are doing this deliberately.

Please read. Then promise to never mention it again.

Scientists urge more frequent updates of 30-year climate baselines to keep pace with rapid climate change (2014)

Climate normals are presently updated once every 30 years, so that the current official climate normal period is still 1961-1990. However, rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are changing the Earth’s climate much faster than before. As a result, decision-makers in climate-sensitive industries may be basing important decisions on information that may be out of date.

In response, many national weather services have started to use the more recent 30-year period of 1981-2010 to give people a more recent context for understanding weather and climate extremes and forecasts.

Under this proposal, all countries would start using the period 1981-2010. This period would be updated every 10 years, so that the 30-year climate normal to be used in the 2020s would be 1991-2020.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,874
Melbourne
Yep, I'm guilty of pointing out deception when I see it.

And, to quote the article you failed to actually link to:

Maintaining 1961-1990 as the base period for monitoring and assessing long-term climate variability and change would promote a better understanding of changes over the course of this century and beyond. The 1961-1990 reference period would be retained for climate change purposes until there is a compelling scientific case for changing it.

So, yes, they want to change base periods for comparing weather, but not for assessing long term climate variability.

Good deflection but no prize, oh, and you can cut out the faux outrage..

DS
 
Last edited:

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Greta was pissed off at not getting an invitation to COP26, hence the swearing since she got to Glasgow. She had one shot at addressing world leaders and has nothing more to contribute except encouraging kids to dodge school for a protest. Her 15 minutes have expired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,923
JuiceMedia have some of the best Government Ads going around...

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users