Would you use public transport more if you got some cash back for it?
Do you think that would help people use public transport more and as a result help reduce climate change or at least increase the awareness?
Question - Climate Change & Public Transport
mrjk05 on 13/09/2019 - 16:40
Poll Options
- 57Would love cash back or some reward
- 167I have to use public transport anyways, but getting something back would be great
- 30No it won't be affective
- 94Dont care
Comments
All these upgrades may be pointless as we are on the precipice of self driving cars paradigm shift.
A better investment would be to start manufacturing parts for electric cars (or better still, manufacture the cars also but who am I kidding).
Lol manufacturing in Australia gg.
All these upgrades may be pointless as we are on the precipice of self driving cars paradigm shift.
How does that change anything? Cars on the road = congestion = more wasted time. You'd think that we should be beefing up public transport to keep people away from driverless cars that are going to clog up the roads even more.
@p1 ama: Self driving cars = constantly communicating vehicles and removal of human error = less erratic driving, less space between cars, less collision, virtually removes the circling cars looking for parking, introduction of decentralised parking…
Self driving cars = constantly communicating vehicles and removal of human error = less erratic driving, less space between cars, less collision, virtually removes the circling cars looking for parking, introduction of decentralised parking…
Doesn't change the fact that if masses of people catching public transport now moved over to "catching" cars, the current road infrastructure just wouldn't be able to support it, even giving the benefits you say of driverless cars (which I agree with).
"let's not get our first high speed trains almost 100 years after Japan got their first ones." — that's precisely what our politicians have been saying for the last 30 years or more, ie. 'LET'S NOT'. So far they are succeding in that goal, and helping to lift their Qantas and Woodside share price.
Yeah right, using public transport, carbon taxes, an undemocratic communist global govt (part of the hidden agenda), rounding up people into overcrowded high-rise "human habitat settlement zones" (also part of the hidden agenda), subsidising expensive, unreliable, bird-killing renewables etc will stop the climate from changing as it has done since the earth was formed.
If you believa that the I have a slightly used harbour bridge to sell … /sarcRelentless greenie propaganda & forced brainwashing of school kids will always fool a gullible public as it has done many times in history.
We are talking about a fraction of a degree warming, interrupted by a global cooling scare in the 1970's, over the past 150 years.
Hysteria is being generated by FAILED climate models predicting a coming climate apocalypse.
Global warming is a net beneficial effect with rising crop yields, faster growing trees, greening deserts, due to extra colourless, odourless trace gas (0.04%), plant food CO2 in the atmosphere.
The World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters
This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe. Fortunately, government and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) analyses allow such claims to be adjudicated based on science, and not politics.https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-…
ALSO:
We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives On A Cleaner Planet
We’re Living Longer, Healthier, MoreComfortable Lives On A Cleaner Planet https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/04/us-life-expectancy-in…
QUOTE: Giving up fossil fuel energy use and, with that, compromising the real improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being that have accompanied that energy use, would be like giving up a real bird in hand to avoid being attacked by a monster that may or may not exist in the bush, that is, a monster that may only exist in the virtual world.
Consistently throughout the last 3,500yrs, humanity prospered & thrived during warming periods like the the Mediæval Warm Period, while intervening colder periods witnessed extreme weather, crop failure, famine & mass depopulation
http://beta.townhall.com/columnists/gregorywrightstone/2019/…
Perhaps both Ocasio-Cortez and Mann should be labeled as “history deniers” for ignoring the true relationship between temperature and the human condition.
Why Are Trees Growing Much Faster Now? Likely Due To Rising Atmospheric CO2 http://climaterealists.com/index.php/index.php?id=5516
Perhaps both Ocasio-Cortez and Mann should be labeled as
“history deniers”…intelligence rejectors.No quotation signs required.
Ocasio-Cortez-occasional car sex
Question - what would it take to convince you that it is real, and it is human caused and that we need to do something about it?
Data that does not exist because it isn't so.
Ie. Statistically significant variance in cooling and warming from the estimated natural cycle, and comparing it against greenhouse gases to establish correlation.
Then creating a scale replica and simulating the release of green house gases in a controlled environment to establish causation.
It's basic science.
That data not only exists, but is widely available and forms the foundation of the entire global scientific community response to climate change.
If your suggestion of making a scale replica of planet earth was serious, you have no business discussing this topic.
I can never tell if people who genuinely believe that THEY know better than almost every single scientist on the planet are morons, mentally ill or just exceedingly arrogant?
@callum9999: If only everything that comes out of any scientist is science.
Climate science is like throwing shit on a wall. Something is bound to stick but until then, we are contending with "scientific conclusions" that is nothing but mere extrapolations with a myriad of overlooked variables that have been inaccurate.
So far, the majority of the predictive models have been proven inaccurate.
Yes, the climate is changing but this isn't new. We already know we're at the end of a ice age. The new phenomenon is this fantasy that we've pinpointed the cause to human activity and if we don't repent, the world will end in
20132024.This isn't science regardless of how many scientist puts their name on it.
Shit by any other name is still shit.
(Oh, if you think that a control model means a scale replica then think the irony of your jab.)
@[Deactivated]: A mixture of all three in your case clearly!
And no, no irony there. You very clearly stated scale replica not "control model".
Nice gibberish, but rather weird that someone so keen on good scientific method doesn't think it's important to provide any evidence whatsoever to support their wacky claims.
@callum9999: Reread my original comment. Clearly tongue in cheek re creating scale model of Earth but fair enough, who is to know.
My "wacky" claims? Unsure what you're referring to. Us being at the end of an ice age isn't exactly disputed opinion.
Predictive models being wrong is wrong through empirical proof. Ie. Al Gores prediction was wrong at every major stop. Even his wild conclusion of crop failures. It's as if the crops are in protest because it has been record harvest since his prophecy.
"The world will end in 2024" is another tongue on cheek but I thought I'd be safe than sorry this time.
"Question - what would it take to convince you that it is real, and it is human caused and that we need to do something about it?"
I MIGHT reconsider if I could see any of this supposed "climatechange®" where I live instead of relentless scaremongering & hysteria in the news media!
Even if I could see it where I live, there is still no evidence that it's anthropogenic.
It would also help if climate "scientists" like NASA GISS, stopped tampering with their historical temperature data, cooling the past & warming up the present data, as if they had an agenda to prosecute.
Climate Data Tampering Passes A Tipping Point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tODIRhhV80&feature=youtu.be
So far, there's not even a hint of this "climatechange®" in my neck of the woods.
Rabid zealots should also stop their endless parroting that "climatechange® is real" soundly demonstrating how UNREAL it is!
If you have to say "it's real" you just prove that it's UNREAL, at least to most rational people!
Where do you live?
(Where I live has consistently been getting warmer and somewhat drier)
@AncientWisdom: "Where I live has consistently been getting warmer and somewhat drier"
I live in Sydney, where do you live? Still waiting to see some climatechange®
FYI: Australia's climate is characterised by alternating droughts & floods.
Short term "drier" but long term drier alternating with wetter.
Australia's Worst Drought Came A Century Before " #climatechange®" Appeared On The National Agenda! The federation drought circa 1900
Federation Drought circa 1900 8yrs duration …. LONGER IN PARTS & MORE WIDESPREAD than now pic.twitter.com/TnXil1Cuko
FLASHBACK 1940: Extreme Drought ALWAYS Followed By Heavy Rain pic.twitter.com/jWBYz3a51H
The reason I asked that question is because generally when people take a position like this, and offer up long debunked factoids, and this type of language, they are not actually coming from a position of facts, but emotion. You have an unreasonable standard of proof for the position you're arguing against but then have almost none for the arguments in your favour.
It's an easy way to see who is worth conversing about this with, and clearly you are not.
I wish you and Tony Heller and your unsourced conspiracy websites were right, I really do, because it would mean millions of people wouldn't die and be displaced, and the extinction event that is taking place wouldnt happen. But you aren't, the thousands of very smart people who have studied this for decades are right.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/nasa-did-not-create-…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-chang…
@minklet: "the extinction event that is taking place"…. HUH? Only in FAKE "million extinction" graphs…
Why Did The Warmster Mob At The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services DELIBERATELY Create This FAKE Chart On Animal Extinctions supposedly showing extinctions rising rapidly when the opposite is true????
Extinctions are dropping sharply!
https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/mass-extinction-lie-exp…
Now i dare you to tell me there ain't no misanthropic/leftie/Marxist/globalist/warmster conspiracy …
@Gekov: Dude, you might want to take a break from the internet. All caps and conspiracy theories in the same post isn't good.
"Question - what would it take to convince you that it is real, and it is human caused and that we need to do something about it?"
Facts……
Literally impossible to prove, as there are far, far too many variables, and correlation is not causation. Climate has been changing since before humans were even here. 2014 had more polar ice than 2012. We had no polar ice 3 million or so years ago, and many times before that. Perhaps the dinosaurs also had iPhones?
Global warming is a net beneficial effect with rising crop yields, faster growing trees, greening deserts, due to extra colourless, odourless trace gas (0.04%), plant food CO2 in the atmosphere.
Cooking chicken in a hotter oven gives a crispier skin and less cooking time.
That does not mean that hotter is always better. There is a point where the extra heat causes the chicken to burn before it is cooked.Giving up fossil fuel energy use and, with that, compromising the real improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being that have accompanied that energy use.
Fossil fuels haven't improved life. The outcome of fossil fuel use (energy) has.
We don't need fossil fuels to see improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being.
We can see the same thing from solar, nuclear, wind or any other form of generating energy.
Fossil fuels might have increased average life expectancy however they are responsible for millions of early deaths every year due to pollution that contains ash, mercury, uranium, lead and other harmful pollutants.
Consistently throughout the last 3,500yrs, humanity prospered & thrived during warming periods like the the Mediæval Warm Period, while intervening colder periods witnessed extreme weather, crop failure, famine & mass depopulation
And what we are seeing now are climate events that are on a much larger scale and more frequent to what was seen before.
There are 19m registered vehicles in Australia. Almost all of them run on fossil fuel. The cost of converting them to other forms of energy is not feasible.
Yes it is.
People probably said the same thing about moving from a horse and cart to an internal combustion engine but we don't have horses and carts anymore.
@whooah1979: Well it's really just like how we moved from the horse and cart.
First we had no electric cars.
Then companies like BMW and Tesla started making them for the luxury market.
Then companies like Hyundai stated making them for the lower end market.
Then more people start to buy them.
Then the cost starts to come down.
Then more people buy them because they are cheaper to run than a petrol car.
Then more people buy them.
Then they get cheaper.
Then more people buy them because they are the same price as a petrol engine car and cost less to run.
Then over time less people buy internal combustion engines.
Then manufacturers stop making them.@spaceflight: That sounds reasonable. We’ll switch over to EV when Tesla drop their prices to $20k to $30k.
@spaceflight: Convert them all to ev. Especially in Australia, where the electricity would still mainly come from coal anyway. Still, the amount of pollution from personal vehicles is tiny in the scheme of things.
@brendanm: I'm converting cars to ev?
Yes the pollution from cars is smaller but if we have electric cars we will have cleaner cities with less pollution.
Large coal power plants still have higher efficiency than lots of small internal combustion engines.
@spaceflight: Are you esl? Not you literally.
Do you know how much pollution is produced from making cars? And from making batteries? This added to your "slightly less bad" coal fired power stations (which are nearly at max capacity at the moment, we would have constant black out if everyone had electric cars), means it's a bit of a wash. If we had nuclear power, it would be a much more compelling argument.
Not you literally.
That's not what you literally said
"Even if you did"
Do you know how much pollution is produced from making cars?
Lots
And from making batteries?
Probably less than making an entire car.
And even accounting for the energy used in producing EV batteries, electric cars produce about 40 percent fewer greenhouse gases than the average internal combustion car around the world.
This added to your "slightly less bad" coal fired power stations
That's not what I said.
Coal power is better than many internal combustion engines. But coal is dying anyway as there are better ways to generate electricity.In China where more than 60 percent of electricity is produced from coal, electric cars are responsible for about 20 percent lower greenhouse-gas emissions than the average internal combustion car in the world.
A coal powered electric car is about the same as a petrol car that gets 5-6L/100km. That's still better than most petrol cars.(which are nearly at max capacity at the moment, we would have constant black out if everyone had electric cars)
No we wouldn't.
If we had nuclear power, it would be a much more compelling argument.
But it would be hard to have nuclear power because we haven't invested in it and have no skilled people.
@spaceflight: So because we haven't invested in it, and have no skilled people, we shouldn't invest in it, and train people? Makes sense.
We already have blackouts/brownouts in summer when too many people use air conditioners.
"You" in that context simply means that anyone is doing it, whoever it may be, it's blatantly obvious you personally will not be converting anything, to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
So because we haven't invested in it, and have no skilled people, we shouldn't invest in it, and train people? Makes sense
That's not what I said.
But Australia would need at least 20-30 years before we could get nuclear power in its infancy.
Universities don't even offer relevant courses to train people to operate and lead nuclear power plants.
We already have other established (and accepted) power generation industries and expertise that could be furthered.
We already have blackouts/brownouts in summer when too many people use air conditioners
We could solve a large amount of that by educating people how to use them correctly.
Seeing your thermostat to 18 degrees during summer is a waste of power and uses more energy than is needed to cool a house.
But Australia would need at least 20-30 years before we could get nuclear power in its infancy.
delusional
@brendanm: Most of the world's electricity still comes from coal, but that is rapidly changing, as plants are retired and solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal is replacing it. The scale of alternatives is still a fraction both locally and globally, but the cost/KW of alternatives is already below gas or coal power, and it continues to get cheaper and cheaper:
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-…
https://about.bnef.com/blog/tumbling-costs-wind-solar-batter…
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-a…
https://www.ebrd.com/news/2018/ebrd-says-renewables-are-now-…So it is just a matter of time before the dinosaur-power is replaced with cleaner, cheaper power.
The only exception is for old vehicles, which will be replaced over time, and the airline industry which is now investing in battery and alternative fuels.@SlartiBartFozz: Rapidly is quite generous. If you know anything about current battery technology, you would know that it is impossible to use in a commercial airliners.
Rapidly is quite generous. If you know anything about current battery technology, you would know that it is impossible to use in a commercial airliners.
So planes run on coal?
@spaceflight: What? You struggle with reading comprehension. How does saying that current battery technology isn't able to work in commercial airliners mean they run on coal? They use jet a1. Which has a much higher energy density than current batteries.
Most of the world's electricity still comes from coal, but that is rapidly changing.
And then you said
Rapidly is quite generous. If you know anything about current battery technology, you would know that it is impossible to use in a commercial airliners.
Yes I know planes run on Jet-A.
You were the one who said rapidly moving away from coal is a generous statement because battery technology is impossible to use in commercial airliners.
@spaceflight: Did you read the entire thing I was replying to? I know it's a lot of words, but sometimes it's best to read them all. Rapidly was replying to the part you've quoted. The bit about planes and batteries, was responding to the part about planes and batteries. In no way are the two linked, and in no way does what I replied to state that planes run on coal.
Do you not understand the problem with energy density?
Did you read the entire thing I was replying to?
Yes I did.
Rapidly was replying to the part you've quoted
I know because I quoted it.
"Most of the world's electricity still comes from coal, but that is rapidly changing."That has nothing to do with planes but somehow you said it does because you said
"Rapidly is quite generous" and then started talking about planes.
The part that actually talks about planes makes no mention of rapidly changing. It says the airline industry is investing in battery and alternative fuels. (Not rapidly).
The only exception is for old vehicles, which will be replaced over time, and the airline industry which is now investing in battery and alternative fuels.
No mention of rapidly in that.
in no way does what I replied to state that planes run on coal.
The person you replied to doesn't say planes run in coal. You did by your poorly written reply.
Maybe your attack on me and reading comprehension is a reflection of yourself?
Do you not understand the problem with energy density?
Energy density is not a problem.
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume.@spaceflight: They are two seperate statements, about two seperate things. You can tell because one mentions the word "rapidly" which is in response to the word "rapidly" of the poster I was replying to.
The part about "batteries and planes" was in response to the part about "batteries and planes" from the poster I was replying to.
So you don't think the energy density of batteries being about 20 times less than that of jet a1 is an issue?
@brendanm: ""Most of the world's electricity still comes from coal, but that is rapidly changing."
IN YOUR DREAMS!
Coal Boom: 1600 new plants in 62 countries around the world, increasing 43%
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/coal-boom1600-new-plants-in…
China Announces Massive 20% Increase in Coal by 2020
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/07/china-announces-a-mas…The Asians are having a really good laugh at suicidal policies being driven by the GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX AND GULLIBLE WESTERN POLITICIANS AND ACTIVIST “SCIENTISTS!
The “Main concern is not “Dwindling Demand” for coal,
but meeting RUNAWAY DEMAND mostly from China & India”
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-cultur…China coal consumption forecast to rise 37% by 2020, according to the China National Coal Asscn
http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/50531/ch…Earth to the Greens: No coal means no steel
Minerals Council of Australia CEO Brendan Pearson exposes either the Greens’ ignorance or their hypocrisy. Maybe both:
Some instances of hypocrisy are so truly audacious in scale, so blissfully ignorant of irony, so completely lacking in self-awareness that they simply take the breath away.
A textbook example is the Greens’ support for the Arrium steelworks in Whyalla.
To see the Greens supporting heavy industry (rather than deriding it as a big polluter) is a welcome development.
BUT, BUT, BUT …
The problem is that the Greens want to phase out the use of coal.
And coal is a primary feedstock for the steelworks in Whyalla (as well as Bluescope’s Port Kembla plant).
You cannot make steel in a blast furnace without coal.
@Gekov: Lol @ those sources & the conservative wet dream of dont get better at anything. Change is bad, where is my horse and cart?
energy density of batteries being about 20 times less than that of jet a1
Also don't forget energy density of a 1/2 full fuel tank is 40 times the energy density of 1/2 full batteries.
1/4 full - 80 times the energy density.
1/8 full - 160 times … etcBattery powered commercial airlines is never going to happen.
"what we are seeing now are climate events that are on a much larger scale and more frequent to what was seen before"
ROTFLMAO Only in fake news & in the minds of the gullible.Warren Buffet “I love apocalyptic climate predictions” Insurance Co's cashing in on globalwarming® hysteria - higher premiums without added climate risk! http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458
No climate change impact on insurance biz: BuffettWorld Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters
This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe. Fortunately, government and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) analyses allow such claims to be adjudicated based on science, and not politics.https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-…
CSIRO: Deserts Greening From Rising CO2 https://csiropedia.csiro.au/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2…
9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/9-graphs-that-pro…THE SOCIAL “COST” OF CARBON IS POSITIVE!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/22/the-social-cost-of-ca…
Cooking chicken in a hotter oven gives a crispier skin and less cooking time.
Gotta love comparing climate to cooking a chicken
/slaps head
And what we are seeing now are climate events that are on a much larger scale and more frequent to what was seen before.
This is a totally false claim!
We’re getting crispier faster every day.
I am just dying to hear your thoughts on the moon landing and the dimensionality of the shape of planet earth.
Yep exactly and for anyone that wants to look at some of the facts surrounding the Climate Change fraud this link is a good start https://m.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/search?query=Cli…
Okay assume global warming isn't real. You're still using up a limited supply of fossil fuels at an alarming rate. Oil might even run out in our lifetime.
What do you think we should do when we run out of oil?
I was thinking why the vote on "Dont Care" is the highest….. Now I suspect is because of the word "Climate Change".
To me that's a word I normally avoid and would not have clicked into. But because of "Public Transport", I did.
I love taking public transport for many reasons, so a cashback will be a bonus.
IMHO everyone should try to take public transport whenever possible.
We should try to walk a little bit and not expect to be driven from door to door.
It is good when I can start in one location but go home from a different location without worrying to have to pick-up my car.All these drought, rain, extreme weather had already happened decades and century ago. A lot of them are human-made but we can control that by changing our habits, individually and collectively. But not forgetting the big volcano eruptions for instance, produce lots more carbon than any human possibly can. Sometimes I think it's quite funny with the amount of carbon being produced in building a bikeway: right from conception to completion. So whilst we still have the public transport, use it! Dont wait until we turn into Tokyo or Beijing where everyone is squeezed like sardines :-)
All these drought, rain, extreme weather had already happened decades and century ago.
Also happened thousands and millions of years ago. Not sure if you recall but the whole world being frozen is kinda extreme. Then it melted. Also kinda extreme.
A lot of them are human-made…
Nope.
but we can control that by changing our habits
Maybe but until proven, nope.
Whilst the climate has been ever changing, what we are seeing today cannot be explained by by historical data.
I'm sure you have seen the graph of CO2 levels before: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
What we see here in this grapph is a massive shift in the abundance of CO2 measured in our atmosphere. The massive shift directly correlates with human consumption of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution and during the 1950s where technological usage become popular.
So how do we know CO2 has a measurable impact on the temperature of the earth?
It has been measured that that certain checmicals have a greenhouse effect. Some of the radiation (energy) from the sun passes from the atmosphere and enters our surface. This energy then must also be emitted out by our eath. When emitting this energy back, some of the energy becomes trapped by greenhouse gases, which then remitts the energy in all directions (including back to the surface). This is why the greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the earth. This is essentially the greenhouse effect and without the greenhouse effect, our planet would be too cold for life.
Molecules that cause the greenhouse effect not only include CO2, it also includes water vapour (being one of the strongest greenhouse gases) and others such as methane.
So if it has been established that the greenhouse effect warms the planet, and we contribute to abundtantly producing CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it is very clear that we would be increasing the intensity of the greenhouse effect and warm the planet. If our activites as humans directly contribute to the output of CO2, it makes sense that if we curb this usage, we can change the intensity at which the greenhouse effect (and climate change) occurs.
What everyone (including scientist) are still figuring out is what effect to the climate will the change in the greenhouse effect will be from our realease of CO2. Our world is fileld with interconnected feedback loops, where we are not sure what the outcome of changing one thing would be. A small change in temperature can either have very big or very little impacts on parts of the planet.
However, it is very clearly established that increased output of CO2 increases the output of the greenhouse effect, so if we can do something about this don't you think we should? The alternative is one that we shouldnt risk to the delicate balance on earth's climate and feedback loops
…it is very clearly established that increased output of CO2 increases the output of the greenhouse effect…
That's a correlation that is circumstantial to climate change.
It's far from causality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing our footprint and reliance on others. I even compost so I'd say I'm definitely below par for environmental impact. I'm just a stickler for people interchanging belief and science.
(I also don't think all scientist know how to science. I know a handful of scientist who are in to homeopathy. I can't even…)
correlation is not causation
It's like all these people that constantly scream, "but scientists say!!!!", forgot one of the most basic tenets of actual science.
@[Deactivated]: Scentists have measured the effect that CO2 has on radiation. They measured the outgoing radiation with the amount incoming and comapred the difference. They found that the outgoing radiation was less than the incoming.
So what does that say? It means that CO2 has a measurable affect on the amount of energy (radiation) trying to escape the atmosphere. If it did not have an effect, CO2 would not change the amount of radiation that was emitted out.
If you extraploate this and increase the abundance of CO2 enough, you will get more heat being trapped within the atmosphere that will cause the climate to warm.
So yes, it has been established that CO2 does cause an increase in the greenhouse effect as it traps radiation.
Read more about the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas: https://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-w…
@worrierwan: … and at no point have I disagreed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
At this point, it's like thinking beer cures cholera. (See 1854 Broad street outbreak).
Just because CO2 can be demonstrated to be a greenhouse gas doesn't mean certain human activities caused climate change.
@[Deactivated]: Fossil fuels have CO2 in them. If you burn them then you're releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. If you say CO2= greenhouse gas= warms the planet and we are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, how could you then say humans are not contributing to causing climate change?
@worrierwan: Because the climate has changed before and CO2 has been released before humans are around. How can you say that if we ceased our current rate of activity, the climate wouldn't change all the same?
@[Deactivated]: I prefer not to waste my time debating whether climate change is anthropogenic or otherwise. It's a discussion that leads nowhere.
What I've noticed in recent years is that there is now a general consensus around the fact that the climate is changing, whereas 10-20 years if you put that idea out there then you'd be met with at least a few people telling you otherwise.
My understanding is that the genesis of permanent polar ice caps dates to around 3 million years ago. Homo sapiens has been around as a species for about 300,000 years. If those statments are true, then homo sapiens was not around the last time there were no polar ice caps, ergo we have zero lived experience of what life would be like for us under those conditions.
As a species, we seem to prefer living in coastal regions which would be directly impacted if polar ice was once again reduced to zero due to changes in the climate. As far as I know, current trends seem to suggest that net polar ice is decreasing rather than increasing based on a very short timeframe of historical data that is available to us.
Thus far I see very little being done in preparation for a significant change in the climate. From my perspective, I see a benefit in contingency planning for that event if we're lucky enough to still be around for its occurrence.
Tinkering around with public transport incentives and energy mixtures is fine, but if we truly want to survive as a species we have to start making some fundamental changes in how we live that directly respond to what will actually happen when the climate does eventually change.
To do that will require putting ideology and egotism to the side, which is currently the opposite to what I see happening in the world.
@Pantagonist: There is no ego with the hard sciences. It is either conclusive facts or speculative opinion.
At this moment, the ego lies with those who claim they're trying to implement humanity saving change.
I'll stick with evidence based practice. If and when the evidence is conclusive, I'll submit to the new understanding but at this point, I practice minimal impact living without any agenda.
Don't forget, the world once submitted to the idea that the shortage of whale oil will be the end of industry. The best practice is to recognize opinions as opinions and not as prophecy.
@[Deactivated]: Climate science is never going to be conclusive, because that would require objectively gathered data sets that extend back to a time before humans existed.
There is ego on both sides of the fence. One could argue that it takes a fair ego to look at the graphs created by NASA and other agencies monitoring atmospheric conditions and then say "but maybe correlation doesn't equal causation in that case".
Not saying that they are the same thing, but the CFC / ozone depletion debate that went on in the 80s is a good example that demonstrates what can happen when scientific theories are put to the test.
In that case we could have said "oh, but perhaps the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere is just part of some natural cycle where ozone disappears and we have nothing to do with it", but instead we decided to ban CFCs and monitor what happened to ozone levels as a result. Based on my understanding, following the ban in 1989 ozone levels have been recovering and are due to return to pre-1980 levels by 2075 or so.
I'd certainly be interested in seeing whether reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and industry made any difference to global temperatures over an extended period.
Granted, the broader climate change issue is knottier than the CFC example I outlined, but wouldn't it be great to know one way or the other rather than living in ignorance?
wouldn't it be great to know one way or the other
It would be but until we figure out how to meaningfully created a controlled test for these hypothesis, we can't.
You're right, the issue is knotty but it is being reported as a foregone conclusion, and as a result, there is a growing zealous "Green" population.
(I don't have any agenda for or against this global warming thing. I do not have shares in any oil based industries nor stake in investment funds that have shares with said companies. My super is self managed. My money is in property. I cannot be any more dissociated with the current status quo unless I start running bio diesel for my cars.)
It would be but until we figure out how to meaningfully created a controlled test for these hypothesis, we can't.
Unlike the CFC issue, I don't think we can just choose a high emissions industry and ban it globally while also agreeing not to increase carbon dioxide emissions in other areas. We're talking about gases that exist at some level irrespective of human activity rather than halogens that wouldn't normally be there if it wasn't for us.
Based on recent climate talks I just can't see a way that every government on the planet would come to an agreement on stopping one form of industry when we have leaders throwing tantrums over emissions targets that aren't even enforceable in any meaningful way.
I feel like it's going to take the natural attrition of carbon dioxide producing activities over time and the monitoring thereof to even approach any kind of acceptable evidence that reducing emissions is making any difference.
I think the issue is that if global temperature / carbon dioxide concentration rises since 1880 are to be believed and you look at what temperature / carbon dioxide variations have preempted based on ice core sampling, we're getting close to not being able to respond in any meaningful way to the change that appears to be quite close on the horizon.
That's why you get a lot of people evangelizing about needing to do something now; because if you believe the data there are some signs that things are potentially going to get bad for us sooner than we expect.
@Pantagonist: The data has been referenced many times, even won an idiot a Nobel for prophecies that have been inaccurate in every way.
If we allow ourselves to manipulate scientific standards based on emotion, we're going to make graver mistakes and even if we coincidentally avert one disaster, we would not know what or how we did it.
It feels like calling for scientific integrity is somehow vilified in this day and age… actually, I think it has always been the case.
@[Deactivated]: I've read plenty of arguments for and against the temperature data produced by NASA and I'm more convinced by those that I've read for it rather than against it.
Probably best to leave this here as I don't really want to get into a religious debate about belief in one side's justifications vs. the other's.
"The massive shift directly correlates with human consumption of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution and during the 1950s"
Nice try BUT … 97% of CO2 emissions come from MOTHER NATURE.
Fossil fuel emissions are INSIGNIFICANT in raising atmospheric CO2 levels.
97% of CO2 emissions are driven by NATURAL TEMPERATURE DRIVEN PROCESSES such as outgassing from warming oceans & rotting terrestial vegetation.
We are still emerging from the ice ages & thus it follows that atmospheric CO2 will rise as the planet warms naturally.
Climate scientist Professor Salby Demolishes A Climate Crock “The CO2 Rise is All Manmade”
Control Of Atmospheric CO2: Climate scientist prof Salby, author of “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics”, explains the real reason for rising CO2 levels! He has myriad peer-reviewed & heavily cited articles in climate science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8&feature=youtu.beClimate scientist prof Salby, shows that mother nature is the dominant CO2 emitter.
Relatively miniscule human emissions don’t count.Mother nature controls atmospheric CO2 levels not humanity.
Human contribution is negligible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8&feature=youtu.be@Gekov: So what you're saying is that the climate is definitely changing.
How do you think we should respond to it, given that where we choose to live in areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rises and increased uptake of carbon dioxide by our oceans is likely to cause food insecurity?
@Pantagonist: "we choose to live in areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rises"
HMMMM … strange that no one noticed sea levels rising since the end of the the Little Ice Age about 1870 UNTIL the globalwarming® hoax raised its ugly head!
FYI: ALL tide tide gauges around the world show that sea level has been rising steadily WITHOUT ACCLERATION for over 100 years.
So what's your beef with NATURAL sea level rise?
@Gekov: No beef whatsoever. I'm just saying that most of the world's population lives at or near sea level and they will be directly impacted when sea levels rise.
Just wondering if you actually have any ideas of your own about how to respond to climate change, other than ALL CAPS and YouTube links?
@Pantagonist: "wondering if you actually have any ideas of your own about how to respond to climate change"
First we have to see some actual climatechange® before we can think about responding to it, which, in any case would be futile since it's driven by MOTHER NATURE as it always has been in the past.
@Gekov: I'm not talking about climatechange®, I'm talking about climate change.
So you see no benefit in humans adapting to it and are happy to see us die out because it's inevitable?
@Pantagonist: "increased uptake of carbon dioxide by our oceans" GARBAGE
Basic physics says that warming oceans OUTGAS CO2!
Fossil fuel emissions are INSIGNIFICANT in raising atmospheric CO2 levels.
97% of CO2 emissions are driven by NATURAL TEMPERATURE DRIVEN PROCESSES such as outgassing from warming oceans & rotting terrestial vegetation.
We are still emerging from the ice ages & thus it follows that atmospheric CO2 will rise as the planet warms naturally.
Climate scientist Professor Salby Demolishes A Climate Crock “The CO2 Rise is All Manmade”
Control Of Atmospheric CO2: Climate scientist prof Salby, author of “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics”, explains the real reason for rising CO2 levels! He has myriad peer-reviewed & heavily cited articles in climate science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8&feature=youtu.beClimate scientist prof Salby, shows that mother nature is the dominant CO2 emitter.
Relatively miniscule human emissions don’t count.Mother nature controls atmospheric CO2 levels not humanity.
Human contribution is negligible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8&feature=youtu.be"increased uptake of carbon dioxide by our oceans" GARBAGE
Sorry, had two ideas in my head when I wrote that. I meant to say reduced oxygen.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/suffocat…
@Pantagonist: Your not arguing with someone in good faith. The CLEAR(yes I can caplock too)scientific consensus is that humans are rapidly accelerating climate change, any denial is conspiracy theorist.
Australia has the natural resources for both angles, renewables are a forever emerging market getting there early is a clear win economically and carbon footprint reduction. We wont compete in production we can compete in material supply and technologically.
The biggest issue the world faces is aligning this politically to benefit a small few donors/lobbyists. Both major parties committed to 50% EVs in 2030 yet it's a left issue. Cheers murdoch et al for the chokehold.
@abuch47: You're free to argue the case in whatever way you choose, but I don't think you're going to win anyone over with your method.
Personally I'm bored of the tribalism that surrounds this debate. As far as I can see there is now an acceptance in all camps that the climate is changing. I prefer to focus on how we're going to respond to it rather than argue about who is responsible and getting nowhere.
@abuch47: The clear theological consensus is that a God or Gods exist.
Your claim is of no more credibility than the claim above.
@Gekov: So if our fossil fuel emissions are insignificant how do you explain this graph?
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_040518.gi…
Our CO2 is the highest it has been for 400,000 years according to that graph and it has almost DOUBLED what was previously highest seen. When CO2 does increase naturally, it usually occurs over many years, however, as you can see on the graph, there has been an unexplainable, sharp increase in such a short span of time.
Now I can agree that CO2 increases and decreases are primarily driven by natural processes such as the regrowing or dying of plants. This has happened since for millions of years. However, there has never been such a distruption in the natural climate cycle as humans burning fossil fuels. That 3% that you are choosing to ignore is NOT insignificant. The climate is always in a delicate balance and a change of 3% can lead to measurable changes in the climate, especially where we observe positive feedback loops.
You also said yourself that wamring of the ocean has an an effect of release CO2 from the oceans. This too will contribute to further CO2 levels in our atmosphere and warm the planet.
Essentially, you are arguing that 3% is insignificant. It is unfortunetly, not insignificant. Just because 3% may seem small, our rising temperatures and the rising CO2 say otherwise.
tshow, unfortunately in this day and age, what ever is said in the media, everyone will just follow it to a tee.
It has always been the case. It is easier to accept than it is to critically assess. The behaviour of the masses is always the path of least resistance.
You already get heaps of monetary reward for catching public transport - it affords you valuable ozbargain time.
As a full time student I get half price public transport travel so I certainly do not need a car at this stage.
Unless youre living the COSMO COFFEE lifestyle, pt in melbourne just blows
I would use PT if it costs less and the service was better. Unfortunately the service gets worse every year and the cost keeps going up.
This is great discussion. Im trying to figure out what would make people use public transport more as a way to help increase climate change awareness. There are obviously several strategies.
I think the end goal would be to have free public transport for everyone (taking the cost of administration of public transport out of the question for now). It would ideally just be lower cost or free.
But maybe a scheme like the motorway cashback or rebate is a step towards getting there?
Spending billions on Sydney’s public transport system will STILL NOT make it ‘excellent’. It will forever and anon be playing catch-up. Ditto for Melb.