Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Global warming up

Discussion in 'Living Room' started by Angel, 15th Jul, 2015.

  1. Angel

    Angel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,281
    Location:
    Paradise, Brisbane
  2. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    679
    Location:
    Sydney
    IFSL has become rubbish and is clearly just pumping out as many news articles as they can to make money from ads.
    They've now posted an article stating the opposite.

    Global warming and temporary cooling (should it eventuate) are very different though. global warming is due to the earth's atmosphere increasing in CO2, while this cooling phenomenon has to do with the sun's activity.

    To the unschooled eye it might seem that if this temporary cooling was to occur, the entire premise of global warming was incorrect. However that's not the case at all!
     
    Esel, Beelzebub and Perp like this.
  3. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,696
    Location:
    Perth
    Is it? This is serious and not sarcastic question from me. I have seen so much hysteria on both sides, I have no idea what the truth is. I have seen physicists claim that the cO2 connection is rubbish because the concentration of cO2 in the atmosphere is too low to have the quantum of impact required to change the climate by the amount it has changed. Personally, I don't find the supposed evidence that global warming is caused by cO2 in the atomosphere particularly convincing.

    https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

    Having studied botany at university level, I was always skeptical about c02 being a "baddy", since plants require cO2 to trive. I find this article very interesting.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ow-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
     
    Handyandy and T.C. like this.
  4. radson

    radson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    811
    Location:
    Balmain
    Relatively sudden climate change may very well be great for subtropical and tropical plants....Not so great for the rest of earths ecosystems.

    PerthGuy. Im wondering what evidence you would find convincing? Whats your convincing tipping point? Is the University of Waterloo your go to source for understanding climate change?

    Personally, I am fully aware that I will never understand the modelling, the algorithms the science behind climate change. Instead I will trust the CSIRO, NASA, 97% of scientists, Scientific American, National Geographic, The Economist and about every non partisan publication that I have read in the last 10 years.
     
    Esel and Perp like this.
  5. LibGS

    LibGS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    615
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
  6. T.C.

    T.C. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    120
    Location:
    rural NSW

    This is simple. The higher the yield, the less the protein as the nutrients have to go further. All the farmer would have to do is put on more nitrogen fertilizer or grow the crop in a higher fertility soil. Then the protein would remain the same.

    See ya's.
     
  7. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,696
    Location:
    Perth
    To be clear, the evidence that I haven't found convincing is that increased cO2 levels are the primary driver of climate change. The University of Waterloo isn't my go to for anything. I simply found the article interesting. Nothing more.

    The 97% of scientists is a slippery figure. If you have a look at what NASA says it is "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists". That is a much narrower pool. Of course an actively publishing climate scientist is going to say that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities". I would be very surprised if 97% of physicists agree that increased cO2 levels are the primary driver of climate change. The 97% quote comes direct from NASA. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
     
    Handyandy likes this.
  8. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    679
    Location:
    Sydney
    Why is carbon always a lower case "C" with you @Perthguy?

    Do you have a science background?
     
  9. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,716
    Location:
    Mornington Peninsula
    Increased temps cause elevations in CO2 levels - not the other way around, and from what I hear there is something like an 800 year lag from the temp rises until the corresponding CO2 levels rise..

    And, did anyone see the temp in Cairns today? :p

    I knew you were all waiting for me to throw that one in!!! :D
     
  10. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,716
    Location:
    Mornington Peninsula
  11. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,716
    Location:
    Mornington Peninsula
    Stop pouring water on a perfectly good scaremongering campaign will ya? :D
     
  12. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,696
    Location:
    Perth
    Not too much. I did some science units at uni a very long time ago. In another degree, I studied how research is funded and published, which I found a lot more interesting. It's probably why I skeptical about some of the claims about "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists". With the current system of funding and publishing, its pretty much a given.
     
  13. Danieljk101

    Danieljk101 Active Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    33
    Location:
    Sydney
    Am i the only one that worries about buying coastal properties that are really close to sea level?

    What if in 20 years people actually start being concerned about rising sea levels and all low lying coastal property become undesirable..

    Bye bye equity...

    Maybe I'm paranoid... hmmm
     
  14. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,716
    Location:
    Mornington Peninsula
    In the 54 years I've been alive, the shoreline at Rosebud has not visibly moved at all. So there's a bit of an indication.

    Anecdotal of course. I haven't been out there with a measuring device of course, but my eyes work.

    Some will argue that the sea will rise in one place and not others. I find this mentality intriguing and a bit hard to believe, considering that the world is one large bucket - and liquid settles at the lowest place and equalizes it's level.

    I think they'll be fine for another 20 years.

    Erosion is the only concern, and this happens both naturally, and from severe storm activity.

    Severe storm activity gets called "Climate Change" these days. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,716
    Location:
    Mornington Peninsula
     
  16. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    679
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's the thing with exponential growth, I may be hard to see at first, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening!
     
  17. wategos

    wategos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    336
    Location:
    NSW
    No this is not how it works at all, the world is not like a large big bucket, the sea level rises by vastly different degrees as a result of different effects of gravity, currents, trade winds, temperature differences, coriolis effects. This is why we are seeing greater sea level rises in some areas than others. Outside the effects of global warming, vertical land movements are another factor affecting local sea level rise observations.
     
    radson and Perp like this.
  18. T.C.

    T.C. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    120
    Location:
    rural NSW
    Ha ha, you're a crack up Wato! Different effects of gravity? Love it mate! This place needs some humour.

    See ya's.
     
  19. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    679
    Location:
    Sydney
    Wow, I hope that's a sarcastic message!

    [​IMG]
     
    Perp likes this.
  20. T.C.

    T.C. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    120
    Location:
    rural NSW
    So you think a kilo weighs different amounts depending where you are? I can actually see how this could be the case, but the differences would be tiny. So the effect it would have on ocean levels would be too. Considering the difficulty in even determining if ocean levels are rising I'd very much doubt that the tiny difference in gravity would be having any effect.

    See ya's.