have we morphed into a theological forum , politics was one thing .. this is becoming bizarre , and might i say off putting to those who wish to discuss energy efficient housing/ sustainable living ?
and i for one ,although i totally disagree with thatmosis with respect to the causes of climate change , thought he made lots of interesting and informed comments, apart from his provocative politics which is of little interest to me) .
am i on the right forum ?
(39 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 8:53:35 am from IP #
-
Jeffbloggs
MemberHey Dave
Hope you didn't take offence to what I have said in the past.
(incl. the "what is causing the flooding of Australia" thread)
Like you, I am all for solutions, one of which was to create water management strategies for flooding, by installing dams. Dubbo teachers response was that we needed to leave the Australian continent how it evolved, and that by installing western farming practices we would destroy the evolved habitat. Buzzman concluded that just because we "can" does not mean we "should", and as dams are used for irrigation, being a form of terraforming necessary to sustain the human populus "parasite", did not agree that we should manage this problem. I did not however agree with this as being morally correct. Humans also have the right to exist somewhere. Likewise the global anti-religious statements needed to be re-buffed and rebuttal.
I also tried to demonstrate that the persistent denial of the existence, or value of any God or religion, did not necessarily mean that they contained no truth whatsoever. This is against all concept of tolerance.So once again, Dave, I apoligise for the intrusion. I am happy to be a part of the forum, and will continue to assist in it's progress as best I can, to the extent that people contribute together for a positive and productive outcome in the exchange of information.
Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 9:38:15 am from IP # -
alfresco24
MemberStop apologising Jef.
I think there are post etiquette rules somewhere that we should all follow and go something like;
Stay on track.
Stay off deviations.
Don't be rude.
Don't get baited, and
Keep emotive or confronting opinions out of it.Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 11:57:22 am from IP # -
I am planning to install this http://www.sunpowerport.com, I want to ask some help/recommend on what to do. Is this the right thread for it?
Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 12:17:04 pm from IP # -
to jeffblogs, i take no offense to anybodies belief systems , i simply wonder why so much time is given over to discussing them on this forum.
you, like all of the regular contributors, are very interesting and knowledgeable but like alfresco says above :
Stay on track.
Stay off deviations.
Don't be rude.
Don't get baited, and
Keep emotive or confronting opinions out of it.Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 7:58:05 pm from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterThe theological discussion has only happened in the last week or so, some posters started bringing religious beliefs into their posts and it escalated from there, maybe it's just the season! There are forum rules at http://www.ata.org.au/forums/rules.html
A bit of healthy debate, even off topic, doesn't hurt now and then, but when posters start being abusive towards each other then we have to look at that and potentially bring out the big stick. Opinions are fine, personal attacks are not.
So, I would recommend we all try and stay on topic, keep it civil, and if you don't have anything useful to post, then don't post at all. If you are posting just to bait others, then sooner or later we will get tired of it and ban you from the forum.
But also remember that each topic/thread is separate from the others, if one topic gets wayward, fix it by starting a new one dealing with the topic you are trying to discuss. Eventually the old topic will move down the list and disappear. Forums are constantly evolving creatures, it's not like a few bad posts will ruin the whole forum, don't blow it out of proportion either...
Posted Saturday 8 Jan 2011 @ 10:38:11 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberSorry Guys didn't get back to you on Saturday but I have to rest on the seventh day, bloody hard work this saving the planet.
yes lets stay on track and
yes lets stay off deviations and
yes lets not be rude
but cant conform to the last. Thats what debate of any kind is about, confronting and emotive opinions. Without these we have a love fest of those of similar minds kissing each others you know whats.
I don't agree with MMCC and that is self evident and no facts that have been presented have stacked up to change my mind, thats fair enough I think considering the state of the country from rain we aren't supposed to have.
I disagree with a Government putting a Tax on nothing for nothing and putting every Australian at a disadvantage in regards to world trade and the cost of living whilst giving money to other countries to pollute.
I will continue to disagree with these ideals as long as the proof is not self evident and the contrary is more evident.
I'm not alone in these feelings so to speak as the average person in the street who is being impacted by the weather and will be impacted by the new tax are also feeling this way. People are being told one thing but experiencing a complete reversal of what they have been told and the resentment is growing out there. Just at our Golf Club this morning I listened to ordinary people discuss the for and against of MMCC and with great difficulty kept my silence as I was interested to hear what they thought without prompting from one like myself with strong views and was not really amazed to hear that 90 to 99% agreed with what I have been saying over the months.
I try my hardest to convert people to sustainable living, inviting them out for a day or a weekend to my place to see for themselves because I believe that this is the way of the future but not because of some scientists tells me that this or that may happen but because I can see with my own eyes and have the brains to realise that we have finite raw materials and will eventually run out.
If it is confronting for members of this forum to see my posts then I am doing what I set out to do, make people think, not blindly follow the leader. I don't apologize and wont apologize and will accept being called anything, except late for dinner. I have never and will never take a backward step for something I believe in and this is how I have lived my life and will continue to do so. If I see a perceived wrong I will try to right it. It doesn't matter to me whether it is on a forum, in the street, in the news or wherever I will voice my opinion and be heard. If people can persuade me through logic and factual facts that I am wrong then I will accept it but not using the kinds of nonsensical predictions that have been made in the past on certain subjects.Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 3:45:04 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberWhat is clear is that just because a person does not support MMCC, does not mean they do not support sustainability. And there are people who believe in MMCC who don't really understand the means to sustainability
The MMCC debate muddies the water and may actually put off people who actually do support sustainability.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 3:54:25 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberDave I believe that time is the only currency we have. That is why I spend time here.
That is why it is important to me to spend my time to talk of things of substance, regardless of it's "proportion". I do not have the luxury to escape with some booze, and waste my time talking about the weather, as if there was no tomorrow! (No offence Rockabye!)Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 3:55:13 am from IP # -
thatmosis
Member69
For once you and I are in agreement, but no kissing please.
The MMCC debate has really nothing to do with sustainability. People should be educated to understand that we live on a finite world and unabated commercialism will spell the death knell of them and this planet as a host to homo sapiens. Small steps are good, like convincing them to turn off everything at the wall before going to bed or going out, except of course security and essentials like fridges etc. Common sense will prevail I hope. This small act alone would save a lot. Battering people over the head with do nots will have just the opposite effect because that is human nature. Small steps and get a result, bash them and get resentment and non compliance.
The only reason that MMCC comes into the debate is its use to pummel people into submission and thats intrinsically wrong.
Wrong Jeff. Everybody has the time to talk about the weather, it doesnt matter how old or how busy you are, stop, smell the roses and talk to you fellow human beings about the weather or whatever, insignificant to you but in some cases a big deal to others. Its only by interacting with others that we really learn, not book learned stuff but life. After all you are a long time dead.Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 4:53:40 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberTM 'For once you and I are in agreement, but no kissing please."
Aww shucks but I am taken.
I am a climate agnostic. Neither for or against.
But I believe sustainability is a moral issue. It is about equity with future generations. But it is also about equity with those who consume far less than us. If the West can't take the moral high ground and relinquish their consumption first, we can't really demand it from those who are only beginning to share our standard of living.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 4:59:35 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberTM
Thats why I only read fiction. At least it can't be proven or dis-proven, it is more reliable than facts that way....
On the point of roses: I only like smelling roses in reality, the artificial nature of simulated discussion without substance stinks.
As for talking about the weather, according to you at least, it will never change anyway, so whats the point? I am passionate about life with purpose. Some have simply retired.
But I'm glad you have found the beginning of sustainability and hope that we can help each other and others achieve this important and necessary change, through a change in their perception.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 9:17:38 am from IP # -
"The MMCC debate muddies the water.."
No it doesn't, powerful industrial groups who control vast media empires are muddying the water to ensure there ability to pollute and destroy the environment is unrestrained.
The science that is being used to measure temperature, water and air quality is now well developed. The results are being used to make certain predictions that have been widely accepted internationally by almost every government on the planet.
A tax is a mechanism, one of many, that is being proposed to try and reduce excess by nations responsible for the majority of the elements being attributed to the changes that are being measured. Many other factors in the world's economy and environmental situation are combining to have unwelcome impacts on the living standards of everyone. Peak oil, failing global markets, overpopulation and environmental degradation to name a few.
I suspect any carbon tax is unlikely to have much of an impact compared to the costs of dealing with natural disasters and collapsing economies like we are seeing in Europe at the moment. In Australia the price of everything we consider a basic need like power, water, housing and food is rising much faster than normal and these are going to bite harder than ever in the next few years.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 11:35:18 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberRockabye
MMCC does muddy the water. Just look at all the propaganda out there from corporations claiming to be saving the planet with emission offsets. Offsets are not emission reductions at all. It's bogus and everyone believes the lie thinking its all under control. They even promote it. Besides I agree with D69, my veiw has always been the planet doesn't need saving, us humans do. Morality is key if hope to stand a chance against the process of "evolution".Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 1:51:00 pm from IP # -
MMCC muddy not only the water but our minds too.
For simplification and general public is better then nothing as point to effects of our existence.
What really matter but nobody said (or see even) is that we are creating and depositing more and more complex products deposited not only in atmosphere but in water and crust.
In longer term their effect are much more important then simple C02 (or other thermo balance equation) due to alternation in chemical composition of our planet.
I am afraid that life as we know it is more fragile and temperature is only of parameters running out of the control.
If we perform chemical analysis of the soil today, another sample hundred years old, then approximate for next thousand years I am afraid that this sample will not be able to sustain many of existing organisms. Most of byproducts of our civilizations are not recyclable, can not be incorporated into biological recycle enzymatic cycles.
For simple illustration only lets imagine our communal waste dump for average city multiply for factor 2 to 100 (call this development) then number of years ie 1000.
Add to this radioactive elements to be released over that period , all chemicals created in electromagnetic fields generated and released.
Sadly and obviously we cannot imagine or predict that complex process then better stay with simple CO2 equation for now.
I don't think in anybody dreams the planet my sustain existing level of pollution released over next million years, but on another hand I can not find existence of any reverse process on global (geological) scale.Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 2:33:16 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberGreenozi
"They know not what they do"Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 4:41:08 pm from IP # -
I think that the discussion about man made global warming does not muddy the water, but it is indeed the greatest threat (besides nuclear armageddon) that mankind is facing over the next couple of hundred years.
Most people don't understand the nature of exponential developments. Because of our short life span and our biological heritage, exponential developments are experienced as linear or at best as a somewhat accelerating processes with a capped speed. But exponential is much faster ... while it looks so slow at the beginning! That means with exponential issues like climate change, one must hit the brakes very early to keep the system under control - even at a time when most people out of reasons explained above think it is completely unnecessary.
If individuals decide to have a less wasteful lifestyle, good on them. But it does not change much as long as they cannot take most of the population with them to share their life style.
To the question of fiat money, religion, philosophy, capitalism or sustainable life style; these are important issues, but they are not as urgent as dealing with climate change. If we can handle several things at the same time fine, let's address it.
But as our energy is limited we must have priorities and because of the severity of the threat, global warming must be addressed with the highest priority. It is like we were told that a big meteorite is going to the the earth in say 300 years. What would we do? Just plant another tree?
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 9:04:02 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberThe cornerstone of science is the reproducibility of findings. And the key to this is a clear description of methodology. It's easy for a layperson to test simple concepts e.g. dropping an apple out of a tower and timing its fall.
It is an entirely different thing when you are entrusting results to complex computer models that integrate multiple sets of data - worse still when different models come up with varying results and nobody can explain exactly why. This is unlike Newton's results which are non-controversial and apply to daily observation.
Human nature tends to place greater emphasis on recent events e.g. last winter's weather, this season's rainfall in their assessment of the situation. The CC committes have been very poor at explaining their methods. To the outsider it looks like black magic with numbers fed into a box which then spits out an answer.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 11:06:28 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberThe weather was used as a metaphor. Just talking to people even if they talk garbage or intelligent bullshit is an interaction that we as humans must have to remain connected.
Sorry rockabye but you are so wrong. Just because the "findings" are accepted by most Governments doesn't make them any more right than the large corporations. It was once widely accepted that the world was flat and that the Sun rotated around the Earth and people who said different were executed for daring to go against prevailing science. The science/ predictions today here and now have been found wanting but people still insist that it is 100% correct and what we are having now are anomalies or glitches, the same as 1942, 1974, 1992 etc. All glitches and anomalies I don't think so and people are still being "executed" so to speak for disagreeing with the accepted science. Not much has changed.
Try telling the people of Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Emerald, St George and the other places inundated by flood waters that these and the floods that have happened over the last months are not happening because the scientists said they wouldnt, but do it from a safe distance.
As you said 69, human nature will place greater emphasis on what happened last winter or summer but also they will look back and see that these events are not one off events but happen with monotonous regularity over the centuries. For a group of scientists to come out and predict that events like this will not happen again and then people seeing that they do place these scientists firmly in the fiction department of the library.
We were told succintly and positively that Australia would not have rain events like the ones we are having now again in our lifetime. We were also told that the winters in the Northern hemisphere would get warmer when in reality they are getting colder as shown by the figures for the last 3 to 4 years. Add these together and even blind freddy can see that something is amiss.
The average person in the street asks "Wait a minute. We were told doom and gloom and its the opposite, whats wrong and who do we believe" " Or "Why is the Government so hell bent on introducing a Tax on clearly misleading science, or is this just a money grab by a cash strapped, morally corrupt Government."
Food for thought, so have a chew and get back.Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:11:20 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberTM said "Try telling the people of Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Emerald, St George and the other places inundated by flood waters that these and the floods that have happened over the last months are not happening because the scientists said they wouldnt, but do it from a safe distance."
This is called a straw man argument. Rockabye and more importantly the American meteorological society have said the correlation between CO2 levels and rainfall is not as strong as CO2 and global mean temperatures.
You are attributing a fictitious and easily disproven statement to an organisation to disparage them.
BTW can you provide the meteorological data record that the Northern Hemisphere is cooler these past four years. I am tired of statements which cannot be validated.
The only think I agree is that majority opinion doesn't prove worth. Lots of people go to McDonalds but that doesn't make it advisable.
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:50:28 am from IP # -
Andy Chee
MemberBlind freddy and the average person also believed in the Power Balance bracelet.
Well who could argue with testimonials from Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Strauss, Brendan Fevola, Nick Riewoldt and Benji Marshall. They're just a bunch of average guys!
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 3:48:20 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberAndy: They're just a bunch of average "blind" guys!
D69 you are still getting sucked into the MMCC debate. Is this your intention?
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:26:37 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberEnjoy
http://myexcellentopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mlk2010eegw-ew.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-continues-to-drop/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-published-1998-still-warmest-year-in-the-uah-satellite-record/#more-30860
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010/winter.html
According to their latest paper, in the International Journal of Geosciences, the seas have been cooling, not warming, as measured by the Argo floats:A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology show that the Australian mean rainfall total for 2010 was 690mm, well above the long-term average of 465mm. It was Australia's wettest year since 2000 and the third-wettest year since records started in 1900.The only month to record a national monthly total below the long-term average during 2010 was June.
The only other time 11 months of the year experienced above-average rainfall was in 1973.
While 2010 started with El Nino conditions in the Pacific - creating drought-like conditions in many parts of eastern Australia - there was a rapid transition to La Nina during autumn.
Unusually heavy falls were experienced in Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia. The most widespread and damaging floods of the year occurred across Queensland in the final week of 2010.
Based on preliminary numbers, 2010 was the wettest year on record for Queensland. The NT, NSW and South Australia experienced their third-wettest year on record, and Victoria its fifth-wettest year
British winter was the coldest for 31 yearsMet Office figures recorded a December-to-February mean UK temperature of just 1.51C, while the 1971-2000 average is 3.7CShare216 Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 13.18 GMT Article history
A driver eases through Great Chart in Ashford, Kent, during what the Met Office has now confirmed as the coldest UK winter for 30 years. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PAAfter suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction.
Provisional figures from the forecaster show the UK winter - which in forecasting terms lasts from the start of December until the end of February - has been the harshest, in temperature terms, since 1978-79.
The news may come as little surprise to those affected by snow in December and January, when falls of up to 2ft saw councils' grit supplies run low, travel chaos and the return of the Guardian's snow day live blog.
According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature - calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 - of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C.
The data shows that Scotland suffered the most this winter, with the provisional mean temperature 0.24C - only slightly higher than 1978-79, when the figure was 0.16C.
England, Northern Ireland and Wales were warmer, although temperatures of 2.12C, 2.05C and 2.09C respectively could only be considered mild by comparison with the Scottish figure.
The 1978-79 winter temperatures were 1.43C, 1.51C and 1.64C for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
"Since mid-December cold weather has often dominated much of the country, with spells of snow and very low temperatures," said a Met Office spokeswoman. "From southern England to northern Scotland, heavy snow caused travel disruption at times through the season."
Heavy snow was still causing disruption last week, when Glencoe ski centre received one of the heaviest snowfalls recorded anywhere in the world.
In addition to the snow, the winter culminated with severe flooding in parts of the UK, with one woman killed when her car was swept along a stream.
The lowest temperature recorded this winter was in Altnaharra, around 50 miles south-west of John O' Groats in the Highland region of Scotland. The -22.3C recorded there was the coldest UK minimum since 1995.
But confirmation of the coldest winter in a generation aside, the Met Office data shows there is some reason to be thankful.
The coldest winter since temperature records began in 1914 was in 1962-63, when the mean temperature for December, January and February was -0.18C.
By the way you may have believed the hype surrounding the Power Bracelet as it didnt take too much thinking to realise that those promoting the band would have been payed big bucks. As the saying goes "theres one born every minute". As for being average guys, get a grip, they are all high placed celebrities and this is an old ploy that has been used for centuries, I mean have a look at Al Gore and an Inconvenient Truth!!!
Sorry 69 and just when I was warming to you, call it what you like you cant tell me that the truth is not apparent today in the weather conditions we are having. Tsk, Tsk, that really is burying ones head in the sand. I wasnt trying to disparage them just point out that they got it sooooo wrong and not just once but several times.
I know this is getting a bit long winded but answer me this in as others have said a yea or no answer
1. Were we told that Australia would not have these types of rain falls again because of Global warming by the scientists.
2. Were we not told that the winters in the Northen hemisphere would become warmer.
3 Are we having a rainfall event that has happened several times before in the last 2 centuries.
4. Are the winters colder in the Northern Hemiphere than predicted by the scientists this year and last year.
Simple, yes or no. No fuss just a simple yes or no.Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:39:50 am from IP # -
dymonite69
Member"–0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2."
So the confidence limits cross zero? It may be decreasing, increasing or not changing. Therefore the most recent data is inconclusive.
As far as analysing the climate this year, the analysis would be underpowered. This is not evidence of absence, it is absence of evidence. It neither proves or disproves the theory.
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 6:08:54 am from IP # -
OptexSolar
EcoOnlineAnd now we see where Thatmosis gets his information from, not the scientific literature but whatsupwiththat - one of the most debunked skeptic blogs on the planet that has been caught making stuff up time and time again
Enjoy
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/odd-man-out/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/tamino_calls_out_anthony_watts.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 8:46:30 am from IP # -
I wonder if data in next couple years will point to Global Cooling will we all be burning coal straight on mining fields and blowing gas and petrol torches to combat this anomaly?
Magnetic poles started already migration with a chance for complete flip, but there is solution too, we could run gigantic electromagnets at the poles to prevent it. I don't want you to scary about about sun cycle but should we supplement luck of solar radiation by sending our nuclear arsenal straight into corona?
Am i exaggerating our capabilities?
As I remember Cesar Caligula sent his army on the sea side for flogging disobedient waves. I heard he hasn't had much more problems with Poseidon since then.Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:11:28 am from IP # -
Looks like there is no cure to ignorance.
Have a look at that graph and talk again about ocean cooling:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/Cherry-picking of time scales or data is one of the main tools of the deniers of man made global warming.
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:23:51 am from IP # -
Lance,
I agree with you that these heated climate change, religion, philosophy discussions are not what should be priority one on the ATA forum.On the other hand people are 'voting with their feet' (in this case keyboard) and just the sheer numbers in the corresponding threads show the huge interest and maybe the need in discussing these issues.
Maybe this could be handled by a slight change in the structure of the forum.
You could add one new Main Theme 'climate change & sustainable philosophies' , and corresponding threads should only be allowed in that Main Theme.
Also the 'Latest Discussions' should not show the threads of that Main Theme. This will help preventing these discussions spoiling the valuable technical discussions that we all enjoy so much on the ATA thread.Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:42:02 am from IP #
