|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8343729)
They're intensity is driven by the difference in temperature between the top and the bottom, which causes convection currents within the cloud and carries the ice particles up and down, generating static electricity. If CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect wouldn't we expect the top of the cloud to be less cold, therefore less difference in temperature, and therefore less convection... Maybe not.
They don't seem any more or less intense in the last ten years or so that I've lived in the tropics anyway, not that i can detect anyway. A little filling in of a tephigram will show how critical the RH and temperature are. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8343756)
You're making all these wild assumptions about my political views which are completely unfounded. I'm not a socialist (global or otherwise). My idea of a carbon tax has nothing to do with reallocating resources by subterfuge. How revenue from a carbon tax could be used is purely a political issue. It could go straight back to taxpayers - there is nothing inherently "socialist" about this idea.
The whole point of my idea for a carbon tax is for it NOT to be unilateral. Australia would have to do it with other countries with large coal reserves. If they don't want to play ball then I don't think we should do it. My point is that it's worth a try - that's what are diplomats are for. On the one hand you say we should be controlling the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Then you say reducing coal production is missing the point but using coal "more efficiently" is what we should be doing. No comprendo amigo. Where have I indicated that I'm using my idea for a carbon tax as a bandwagon for socialist ideas? What socialist ideas? What the heck are you talking about? If the two key points you make are key to your proposal: 1. All ETs money is handed back to taxpayers. 2. ETS is only imposed when the world agrees to the same tax, same levels Then I would fully support it. However – the whole point of an ETS tax is to force consumers to reduce consumption via punitive taxation. If we give the mums and dads all the ETS money back, they will just pay the extra for the electricity. It will not affect consumption. IF you intend handing it back on a controlled basis – poorer families get more etc, then it’s a socialist taxation. It is trying to achieve social equalisation. If you intend giving it to underdeveloped countries then it’s a dirty little plot and has stuff all to do with AGW. Given what happened at Copenhagen, with China playing A grade politics and India demanding ETS aid whilst refusing to even talk about cutting its own reductions, I doubt if “2†will occur. But fe lfree to spend your time trying. Just leave us to last please. |
Re: Global warming
We're all doomed :(
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by paulry
(Post 8345031)
We're all doomed :(
Duped into acting before anything is proven. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8345037)
Not doomed, duped.
Duped into acting before anything is proven. |
Re: Global warming
S O't:
>>IF you intend handing it back on a controlled basis – poorer families get more etc, then it’s a socialist taxation. It is trying to achieve social equalisation. If you intend giving it to underdeveloped countries then it’s a dirty little plot and has stuff all to do with AGW. << I think you are reading too much into this. It's just a political cock-up and a lack of thought. The unintended consequences rule! |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8344779)
The socialist charge is an american one. It originates from right wing politics where anybody who disagrees with them is a "commie". It is used consistently in US propaganda, although with the climate debate it seems to be leaking out around the world.
One of my key objections to the AGW debate is how it has been hijacked by every claptrap social, environmental and socialist belief. A key tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth – either on a national scale, or global scale. National Scale redistribution of wealth: The ETS tax follows this principle. In December last year the ALP announced that 2.9 million low-income earners would benefit from the ETS's $49 billion compensation package. Ninety per cent of low-income families would recover 120 per cent of the costs borne because of the ETS. The modelling showed that the average impact on low-income families will be $420, while they'll get average assistance of $610. THAT, Iolande, is socialism in action. Taxing everyone on an even basis, and handing it back on an uneven one. It is a socialist ideology. Global Scale Redistribution of wealth: Financial aid for developing countries was one of the most important issues of the Copenhagen Conference. Developing countries actually threatened to leave the conference if they did not obtain sufficient guarantees that they would receive funding. (that is blackmail….) In the IPCC plan, US$30 billion a year will be given to developing countries to adapt to climate change in the period 2010-2012. The amount of this aid is expected to grow progressively with the objective of reaching $100 billion a year by 2020. The EU has committed to give $3.6 billion (€2.4 billion) a year until 2012 which makes some $10.6 billion for the period 2010-2012. The United States have promised $1-1.3 billion a year until 2012. Japan has announced a contribution of approximately $15 billion for the period 2010-2012. At Copenhagen it was proposed that a High Level Panel will be set up to look for all possible sources of funding – such as market-based instruments (e.g. taxes on maritime or air transport). It was estimated that €22-50bn would come from public sources, the rest from alternative financing sources. That is redistributing wealth across nations from richer ones to poorer ones. It is a Socialist ideology. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8345114)
I would disagree Iolande.
One of my key objections to the AGW debate is how it has been hijacked by every claptrap social, environmental and socialist belief. A key tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth – either on a national scale, or global scale. National Scale redistribution of wealth: The ETS tax follows this principle. In December last year the ALP announced that 2.9 million low-income earners would benefit from the ETS's $49 billion compensation package. Ninety per cent of low-income families would recover 120 per cent of the costs borne because of the ETS. The modelling showed that the average impact on low-income families will be $420, while they'll get average assistance of $610. THAT, Iolande, is socialism in action. Taxing everyone on an even basis, and handing it back on an uneven one. It is a socialist ideology. Global Scale Redistribution of wealth: Financial aid for developing countries was one of the most important issues of the Copenhagen Conference. Developing countries actually threatened to leave the conference if they did not obtain sufficient guarantees that they would receive funding. (that is blackmail….) In the IPCC plan, US$30 billion a year will be given to developing countries to adapt to climate change in the period 2010-2012. The amount of this aid is expected to grow progressively with the objective of reaching $100 billion a year by 2020. The EU has committed to give $3.6 billion (€2.4 billion) a year until 2012 which makes some $10.6 billion for the period 2010-2012. The United States have promised $1-1.3 billion a year until 2012. Japan has announced a contribution of approximately $15 billion for the period 2010-2012. At Copenhagen it was proposed that a High Level Panel will be set up to look for all possible sources of funding – such as market-based instruments (e.g. taxes on maritime or air transport). It was estimated that €22-50bn would come from public sources, the rest from alternative financing sources. That is redistributing wealth across nations from richer ones to poorer ones. It is a Socialist ideology. Look at the US, it can't even provide basic health care for most of its citizens. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8345044)
Duped into doing something about climate change or duped into ETS?
What I have not seen so far is a single shred of accurate conclusive evidence to even suggest the world is warming. In fact as admitted further up this thread, there has been no measurable warming since 1995, which is exactly the time that we switched to very accurate measuring systems. (which should be a bloody big worry for the AGW lobby) As for ETS, as sure as sugar we are being duped here. We are being taxed for two reasons – the socialist elements in the ALP want to see their Marxist views being put into place, and the government needs more money because it is incapable of balancing a budget. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8345122)
What's wrong with socialism?
Look at the US, it can't even provide basic health care for most of its citizens. But lets be open and honest about it. If it is a good idea you do not need to wrap it up in another cause and impose it by subterfuge. Which is my objection to AGW being used to impose socialist ideology. I would feel the same way if AGW was hijacked by the right wing, or the global tiddlywinks movement. AGW is a serious scientific theory. There is no place for politics in it. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8344886)
Thunderstorms are driven by the difference of the cloud's thermal temperature and the "outside" temperature. When the air rises at the saturated adiabatic lapse rate it actually gains on the "outside" air temperature and rises even faster. So the amount of water in the atmosphere - crudely the relative humidity - is a part of the equation. Since a warmer atmosphere will contain more water the storms will, all else being equal, be stronger and more likely to be generated.
A little filling in of a tephigram will show how critical the RH and temperature are. So the amount of water in the atmosphere - crudely the relative humidity Anyway, all you've described is how the convection currents work. But the convection currents are driven by air rising, cooling as they go, then become too cold and falling. And they cool because the air at the top of the storm is colder than the air at the bottom. It is, however, clearly the case that we get more storms in the tropics. So the warmer the climate the more storms you get, but I was thingking more about the differential of temperature in the air column, if the greenhouse effect is true then the air at altitude should be a lot warmer than it would be otherwise, which would slow down the cooling of that convection air in the storm? Anyway, it's all rather academic. I'm sure any changes are imperceptible. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8345169)
Relative humidity isn't the same as the amount of the water in the atmosphere, no matter how crudely you put it. An RH of 100 at 2 degrees C is a much smaller amount of water per litre air than a an RH of 100 at 35 degrees C. I understand what you mean, but we wouldn't want to mislead anyone.
Anyway, all you've described is how the convection currents work. But the convection currents are driven by air rising, cooling as they go, then become too cold and falling. And they cool because the air at the top of the storm is colder than the air at the bottom. It is, however, clearly the case that we get more storms in the tropics. So the warmer the climate the more storms you get, but I was thingking more about the differential of temperature in the air column, if the greenhouse effect is true then the air at altitude should be a lot warmer than it would be otherwise, which would slow down the cooling of that convection air in the storm? Anyway, it's all rather academic. I'm sure any changes are imperceptible. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8345169)
Relative humidity isn't the same as the amount of the water in the atmosphere, no matter how crudely you put it. An RH of 100 at 2 degrees C is a much smaller amount of water per litre air than a an RH of 100 at 35 degrees C. I understand what you mean, but we wouldn't want to mislead anyone.
Anyway, all you've described is how the convection currents work. But the convection currents are driven by air rising, cooling as they go, then become too cold and falling. And they cool because the air at the top of the storm is colder than the air at the bottom. It is, however, clearly the case that we get more storms in the tropics. So the warmer the climate the more storms you get, but I was thingking more about the differential of temperature in the air column, if the greenhouse effect is true then the air at altitude should be a lot warmer than it would be otherwise, which would slow down the cooling of that convection air in the storm? Anyway, it's all rather academic. I'm sure any changes are imperceptible. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8345244)
I'm beginning to get the picture of your approach - nitpicking the definitions rather than looking at the post <g>.
|
Re: Global warming
Interesting stuff that slipped under the radar last year:
Open Letter – Climate Change Bundeskanzleramt Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1 10557 Berlin Vizerprasident Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg 14476 Grob Glienicke Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a E-mail: [email protected] Grob Glienicke 26.07.09 To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany: When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past. Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it. A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred. More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree. The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum. In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published. The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions. Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard. Respectfully yours, Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE Diplom-Geologe Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.) Dr. Holger Thuß EIKE President European Institute for Climate and Energy http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/ Signed by Scientists 1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel 2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland 3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf 4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services 5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck 6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist 7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party 8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist 9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V. 10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics 11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist 12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert 13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR 14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist 15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist 16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE 17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director cientÃfico INTTAS, Paraguay 18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist 19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist 20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch 21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist 22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry 23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist 24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler 25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker 26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist 27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig 28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH 29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster 30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist 31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist 32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist 33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew 34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland 35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin 36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist 37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta 38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological- Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster 39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert 40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist 41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter 42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for Standards and Norms i.R. 43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg 44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH 45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist 46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist 47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor 48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist 49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist 50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator 51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist 52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor 53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist 54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy Leipzig 55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS 56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist 57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist 58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist 59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences 60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist 61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:23 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.